Objective. To develop a valid and reliable academic resilience scale for use in the didactic portion of the Doctor of Pharmacy curriculum to identify those pharmacy students who have greater capacity to overcome academic adversity. Methods. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among first-year, second-year, and third-year pharmacy students to assess psychometric properties of a 30-item adapted academic resilience scale. Data were also collected using the Short Grit Scale (Grit-S). Demographic characteristics were collected from student records. Exploratory factor analysis was applied to determine the number of underlying factors responsible for data covariation. Principal components analysis was used as the extraction method. Varimax rotation method was used, and the Cronbach alpha was estimated. Validity testing was conducted by calculating Pearson's r correlations between the adapted academic resilience scale and GritS. Results. The survey response rate was 84%. The final version of the scale, the Academic Pharmacy Resilience Scale (APRS-16), had four subscales and 16 items (14 items failed to load on any of the factors and were deleted). The Cronbach alpha was .84, indicating strong internal consistency. The APRS-16 and its subscales were significantly correlated to the GritS and its subscales, providing evidence of effective convergent validity. Conclusion. Evidence supports the reliability and validity of the APRS-16 as a measure of academic resilience in pharmacy students. Future studies should use the APRS-16 to investigate the relationship between academic resilience and performance outcomes among pharmacy students.
IntroductionStudies have demonstrated the positive effect that pharmacist‐led smoking cessation services have on smoking cessation rates, but data regarding pharmacists' impact on smoking cessation in a pulmonary clinic are lacking.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of pharmacist‐led smoking cessation visits compared with routine smoking cessation counseling performed by other pulmonary practitioners on smoking cessation rates and outcomes in a population with significant pulmonary disease.MethodsThis was a single center, retrospective, observational cohort study comparing patients who were solely counseled on smoking cessation by a practitioner during their pulmonary clinic appointment to patients who received smoking cessation services from a pharmacist. The primary outcome was a comparison of the percentage of patients who self‐reported cessation at 1, 6, and at 12 months from their initial visit between both cohorts. Other outcomes included the rate of relapse, rate of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, and time spent counseling patients. Continuous variables were analyzed with an independent samples t‐test or Mann–Whitney U‐test as appropriate. Pearson's chi‐square or Fisher's exact test was used to analyze categorical data.ResultsIn total, 149 patients counseled by a pharmacist met the inclusion criteria for the study. A matched cohort of 88 practitioner‐managed patients was used for comparison. Patients managed by the pharmacist achieved higher cessation rates at 1 and 6 months compared with those managed by practitioners, though results were not statistically significant. Patients managed by the pharmacist had significantly higher quit rates at 12 months compared with those managed by practitioners, with 21 patients (14.1%) quitting in the pharmacist‐managed group versus 5 patients (5.7%) in the practitioner‐managed group (p = 0.045).ConclusionPatients with significant pulmonary disease had higher rates of smoking cessation at 12 months when managed by a pharmacist compared with routine counseling provided during practitioner‐led visits.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.