The development, validity and applicability to practice of pharmacy-related competency frameworks: A systematic review.

Competency frameworks Competency-based education Health professions Pharmacy Professional development

Journal

Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP
ISSN: 1934-8150
Titre abrégé: Res Social Adm Pharm
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101231974

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 2021
Historique:
received: 14 09 2020
revised: 14 02 2021
accepted: 14 02 2021
pubmed: 1 3 2021
medline: 22 9 2021
entrez: 28 2 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Global reforms in the education of health workers has culminated in the implementation of competency-based education and training (CBET). In line with the CBET model, competency frameworks are now commonplace in the health professions. In pharmacy, these frameworks are used to regulate career entry, benchmark standards of practice and facilitate expertise development. This systematic review assessed the development, validity and applicability to practice of pharmacy-related competency frameworks. PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, Scopus, ProQuest and PsycINFO electronic databases were searched to identify relevant literature. Additional searching included Google Scholar, electronic sources of grey literature, and the Member Organisation websites of the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP). The findings of this review were synthesised and reported narratively. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO with reference number CRD42018096580. In total, 53 pharmacy-related frameworks were identified. The majority (n = 38, 72%) were from high income countries in Europe and the Western Pacific region, with only three each from countries in South East Asia (SEA) and Africa. The identified frameworks were developed through a variety of methods that included expert group consultation used alone, or in combination with a literature review, job/role evaluation, or needs assessment. Profession wide surveys and consensus via a nominal group, Delphi, or modified Delphi technique were the primary methods used in framework validation. The competencies in the respective frameworks were generally ranked relevant to practice, thereby confirming validity and applicability. However, variations in competency-related terminologies and descriptors were observed. Disparities on perception of relevance also existed in relation to area of practice, length of experience, and level of competence. For example, pharmaceutical care competencies were typically ranked high in relevance in the frameworks, compared to others such as the research-related competencies. The validity and applicability to practice of pharmacy-related frameworks highlights their importance in competency-based education and training (CBET). However, the observed disparities in framework terminologies and development methods suggest the need for harmonisation.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Global reforms in the education of health workers has culminated in the implementation of competency-based education and training (CBET). In line with the CBET model, competency frameworks are now commonplace in the health professions. In pharmacy, these frameworks are used to regulate career entry, benchmark standards of practice and facilitate expertise development.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review assessed the development, validity and applicability to practice of pharmacy-related competency frameworks.
METHOD
PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, Scopus, ProQuest and PsycINFO electronic databases were searched to identify relevant literature. Additional searching included Google Scholar, electronic sources of grey literature, and the Member Organisation websites of the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP). The findings of this review were synthesised and reported narratively. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO with reference number CRD42018096580.
RESULTS
In total, 53 pharmacy-related frameworks were identified. The majority (n = 38, 72%) were from high income countries in Europe and the Western Pacific region, with only three each from countries in South East Asia (SEA) and Africa. The identified frameworks were developed through a variety of methods that included expert group consultation used alone, or in combination with a literature review, job/role evaluation, or needs assessment. Profession wide surveys and consensus via a nominal group, Delphi, or modified Delphi technique were the primary methods used in framework validation. The competencies in the respective frameworks were generally ranked relevant to practice, thereby confirming validity and applicability. However, variations in competency-related terminologies and descriptors were observed. Disparities on perception of relevance also existed in relation to area of practice, length of experience, and level of competence. For example, pharmaceutical care competencies were typically ranked high in relevance in the frameworks, compared to others such as the research-related competencies.
CONCLUSION
The validity and applicability to practice of pharmacy-related frameworks highlights their importance in competency-based education and training (CBET). However, the observed disparities in framework terminologies and development methods suggest the need for harmonisation.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33640334
pii: S1551-7411(21)00074-7
doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.02.014
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1697-1718

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Arit Udoh (A)

College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Heritage Building ITM, B15 2TH, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Workforce Development Hub, International Pharmaceutical Federation, Andries Bickerweg 5, 2517 JP, The Hague, the Netherlands. Electronic address: a.e.udoh@bham.ac.uk.

Andreia Bruno-Tomé (A)

Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville Campus, Melbourne, Australia; Workforce Development Hub, International Pharmaceutical Federation, Andries Bickerweg 5, 2517 JP, The Hague, the Netherlands. Electronic address: andreia.bruno@monash.edu.

Desak Ketut Ernawati (DK)

Department of Pharmacology and Therapy, Universitas Udayana, Denpasar, Bali, 80234, Indonesia; Workforce Development Hub, International Pharmaceutical Federation, Andries Bickerweg 5, 2517 JP, The Hague, the Netherlands. Electronic address: dernawati@gmail.com.

Kirsten Galbraith (K)

Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, Parkville Campus, Melbourne, Australia; Workforce Development Hub, International Pharmaceutical Federation, Andries Bickerweg 5, 2517 JP, The Hague, the Netherlands. Electronic address: kirstie.galbraith@monash.edu.

Ian Bates (I)

University College London School of Pharmacy, UCL-FIP Collaborating Centre, WC1N 1AX, London, United Kingdom; Workforce Development Hub, International Pharmaceutical Federation, Andries Bickerweg 5, 2517 JP, The Hague, the Netherlands. Electronic address: i.bates@ucl.ac.uk.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH