Including questions on a topic in examinations provides a signal to students that this topic is considered important. As shown in Table 9, pharmacy students were much more likely to have questions concerning drug promotion included in examinations than medical students. In both cases, a relationship also existed between the amount of time devoted to the subject and the likelihood of testing.
Table 9: Testing
| |
Pharmacy
n=91 |
Medical
n=137 |
Combined
n=228 |
Are questions on drug promotion included in student examinations?* |
62 (68%) |
51 (37%) |
113 (50%) |
| |
- less than ½ day of education |
5/18 (28%) |
12/51(24%) |
17/69 (25%) |
| |
- 4 to 9 hours |
19/23 (83%) |
16/43 (37%) |
35/66 (53%) |
| |
- more than 10 hours |
38/50 (76%) |
22/39 (56%) |
60/89 (67%) |
* pharmacy and medical respondents differed significantly, p<.05
Only a minority of educators systematically evaluated the effectiveness of educational programming; as might be expected, the rate was higher among those who also devoted more time to education. Tables 9a and 9b describe the type of evaluation carried out when an evaluation was mentioned.
Table 9c describes the types of outcomes that were being evaluated. This was most likely to be students’ opinion of the educational session, for example as stated on an evaluation form, followed by effects on knowledge. Longer-term effects on behaviour are rarely evaluated.
Table 9a: Evaluation
| |
Pharmacy
n=91 |
Medical
n=137 |
Combined
n=228 |
Is the effectiveness of education on drug promotion being evaluated? (in terms of meeting its goals) |
20 (22%) |
24 (18%) |
44 (19%) |
| |
- less than ½ day of education |
2/18 (11%) |
4/51 (8%) |
6/69 (9%) |
| |
- 4 to 9 hours |
6/23 (26%) |
7/43 (16%) |
13/66 (20%) |
| |
- more than 10 hours |
12/50 (24%) |
11/39 (28%) |
23/89 (26%) |
Table 9b: Types of evaluation
What type of evaluation was done? |
Pharmacy
n=91 |
Medical
n=137 |
Combined
n=228 |
Written or oral course appraisals (e.g. participant evaluation forms) |
14 (15%) |
19 (14%) |
33 (15%) |
Before and after comparisons of students attending sessions |
7 (8%) |
10 (7%) |
17 (8%) |
Measurement of # students attending sessions on promotion |
5 (6%) |
2 (2%) |
7 (3%) |
Measurement of effects on students after graduation |
5 (6%) |
2 (2%) |
7 (3%) |
Comparisons of students at your institution who did and did not attend sessions |
3 (3%) |
2 (2%) |
5 (2%) |
Comparisons of students at your institution with students at another institution |
1 (1%) |
2 (1%) |
3 (1%) |
Times series measurements at several future time points |
0 |
1 (1%) |
1 (0.4%) |
Other (generally additional detail on responses above) |
3 (3%) |
3 (2%) |
6 (3%) |
Table 9c: What outcome or outcomes are being evaluated?
| |
Pharmacy
n=91 |
Medical
n=137 |
Combined
n=228 |
Students’ opinions of the educational session(s) |
14 (15%) |
15 (11%) |
29 (13%) |
Knowledge |
11 (12%) |
11 (8%) |
22 (10%) |
Skills in critical appraisal of promotional materials |
9 (10%) |
11 (8%) |
20 (9%) |
Attitudes |
7 (8%) |
12 (9%) |
19 (8%) |
Prescribing or dispensing behaviours |
7 (8%) |
8 (6%) |
15 (7%) |
Skills for interacting with sales representatives |
3 (3%) |
3 (2%) |
6 (3%) |
Acceptance of gifts |
2 (2%) |
4 (3%) |
6 (3%) |
Frequency of use of drug company information sources |
4 (4%) |
2 (2%) |
6 (3%) |
Financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry |
3 (3%) |
2 (1%) |
5 (2%) |
Other* |
0 |
2 (1%) |
2 (1%) |
* ”plans for interaction with pharmaceutical industry”, and ”ethical side of this more generally” (both were W. Pacific, medical faculty respondents)
Loading...
