Key Findings and Recommendations from the American Association of College of Pharmacy Curriculum Quality Survey of US Pharmacy School Faculty

IF 3.8 4区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
M.O. Faruk Khan , Mohamed Rashrash , Suhila Sawesi , Fatma Anam
{"title":"Key Findings and Recommendations from the American Association of College of Pharmacy Curriculum Quality Survey of US Pharmacy School Faculty","authors":"M.O. Faruk Khan ,&nbsp;Mohamed Rashrash ,&nbsp;Suhila Sawesi ,&nbsp;Fatma Anam","doi":"10.1016/j.ajpe.2025.101391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate the faculty perspectives on how well pharmacy programs achieve key areas in the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy faculty survey, including administration, governance, faculty development, infrastructure, curriculum, teaching, and student supervision.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Curriculum Quality Survey data from 2016 to 2023 were analyzed. The survey included 40 Likert-scale questions (rated from 1 to 5: Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree). Questions were grouped into the following categories: organizational structure, administration, faculty support, curriculum, and resources. Responses for “Agree’’ and “Strongly Agree’’ were combined to report the overall agreement levels. An Independent Samples <em>t</em>-test was used to compare the mean agreement levels between private and public institutions, and trend analysis was conducted for each item.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Faculty agreements ranged from 49.8 ± 2.5% to 94.8 ± 0.7% in public and 56.2 ± 2.3% to 95.8 ± 0.7% in private institutions. Private institutions exhibited statistically significant higher agreement levels than public institutions in faculty development, while public institutions exhibited statistically significant higher agreement levels in resources, infrastructure, professionalism, and culture.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Faculty concerns include leadership, resource allocation, and professional development across public and private institutions. Recommendations include strengthening cultural competency training, leadership, governance, faculty recruitment, emerging technologies, and interprofessional education. Although based on the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education Standards 2016, these analyses remain relevant to Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education Standards 2025, which incorporate the earlier standards in a reorganized format.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55530,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education","volume":"89 4","pages":"Article 101391"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002945925000361","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the faculty perspectives on how well pharmacy programs achieve key areas in the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy faculty survey, including administration, governance, faculty development, infrastructure, curriculum, teaching, and student supervision.

Methods

American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Curriculum Quality Survey data from 2016 to 2023 were analyzed. The survey included 40 Likert-scale questions (rated from 1 to 5: Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree). Questions were grouped into the following categories: organizational structure, administration, faculty support, curriculum, and resources. Responses for “Agree’’ and “Strongly Agree’’ were combined to report the overall agreement levels. An Independent Samples t-test was used to compare the mean agreement levels between private and public institutions, and trend analysis was conducted for each item.

Results

Faculty agreements ranged from 49.8 ± 2.5% to 94.8 ± 0.7% in public and 56.2 ± 2.3% to 95.8 ± 0.7% in private institutions. Private institutions exhibited statistically significant higher agreement levels than public institutions in faculty development, while public institutions exhibited statistically significant higher agreement levels in resources, infrastructure, professionalism, and culture.

Conclusion

Faculty concerns include leadership, resource allocation, and professional development across public and private institutions. Recommendations include strengthening cultural competency training, leadership, governance, faculty recruitment, emerging technologies, and interprofessional education. Although based on the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education Standards 2016, these analyses remain relevant to Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education Standards 2025, which incorporate the earlier standards in a reorganized format.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
15.20%
发文量
114
期刊介绍: The Journal accepts unsolicited manuscripts that have not been published and are not under consideration for publication elsewhere. The Journal only considers material related to pharmaceutical education for publication. Authors must prepare manuscripts to conform to the Journal style (Author Instructions). All manuscripts are subject to peer review and approval by the editor prior to acceptance for publication. Reviewers are assigned by the editor with the advice of the editorial board as needed. Manuscripts are submitted and processed online (Submit a Manuscript) using Editorial Manager, an online manuscript tracking system that facilitates communication between the editorial office, editor, associate editors, reviewers, and authors. After a manuscript is accepted, it is scheduled for publication in an upcoming issue of the Journal. All manuscripts are formatted and copyedited, and returned to the author for review and approval of the changes. Approximately 2 weeks prior to publication, the author receives an electronic proof of the article for final review and approval. Authors are not assessed page charges for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信