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.
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.
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021 Oct;17(10):1697-1718. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2021.02.014. Epub 2021 Feb 19.
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.
全球卫生工作者教育改革最终导致了以能力为基础的教育和培训（CBET）的实施。按照 CBET 模式，能力框架现在在卫生专业中很常见。在药学中，这些框架用于规范职业准入、基准实践标准和促进专业知识发展。
本系统评价评估了与药学相关的能力框架的发展、有效性和对实践的适用性。
检索了 PubMed/Medline、CINAHL、Embase、ERIC、Scopus、ProQuest 和 PsycINFO 电子数据库，以确定相关文献。此外，还进行了 Google Scholar、灰色文献电子资源以及国际药学联合会（FIP）成员组织网站的搜索。本综述的结果以叙述性方式进行综合和报告。该综述方案已在 PROSPERO 上注册，参考编号为 CRD42018096580。
共确定了 53 个与药学相关的框架。其中，大多数（n=38，72%）来自欧洲和西太平洋地区的高收入国家，东南亚（SEA）和非洲各有三个。所确定的框架是通过多种方法制定的，包括单独使用或与文献综述、工作/角色评估或需求评估相结合的专家组咨询。专业范围内的调查以及通过名义群体、德尔菲法或改良德尔菲法达成的共识是框架验证的主要方法。各自框架中的能力通常被认为与实践相关，从而确认了其有效性和适用性。然而，在与能力相关的术语和描述符方面存在差异。在实践领域、经验长短和能力水平方面，对相关性的看法也存在差异。例如，与其他领域（如研究相关的能力）相比，药物治疗方面的能力在框架中通常被认为具有更高的相关性。
与药学相关框架的有效性和对实践的适用性突出了它们在以能力为基础的教育和培训（CBET）中的重要性。然而，框架术语和发展方法方面存在的差异表明需要进行协调。
