Toolkit for US colleges/schools of pharmacy to prepare learners for careers in academia.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this article is to provide an academic toolkit for use by colleges/schools of pharmacy to prepare student pharmacists/residents for academic careers. METHODS: Through the American Association of Colleges of Pharmac (AACP) Section of Pharmacy Practice, the Student Resident Engagement Task Force (SRETF) collated teaching materials used by colleges/schools of pharmacy from a previously reported national survey. The SRETF developed a toolkit for student pharmacists/residents interested in academic pharmacy. RESULTS: Eighteen institutions provided materials; five provided materials describing didactic coursework; over fifteen provided materials for an academia-focused Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences (APPE), while one provided materials for an APPE teaching-research elective. SRETF members created a syllabus template and sample lesson plan by integrating submitted resources. Submissions still needed to complete the toolkit include examples of curricular tracks and certificate programs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy faculty vacancies still exist in pharmacy education. Engaging student pharmacists/residents about academia pillars of teaching, scholarship and service is critical for the future success of the academy.

Methods Used by Colleges and Schools of Pharmacy to Prepare Student Pharmacists for Careers in Academia.

Objective. To identify the methods used by US colleges and schools of pharmacy to prepare student pharmacists for academic careers. Method. An 18-item survey instrument was developed and distributed to US colleges and schools of pharmacy. Representatives were asked about faculty responsibilities, experiences in academia currently offered to student pharmacists, and representatives' perception of their student pharmacists' preparedness for careers in academia, including barriers in current programming. Results. Representatives from 96 colleges/schools responded. The vast majority (96%) provided academia-focused advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs), 40% provided didactic coursework in academia, 28% offered a longitudinal research track, and 42% offered academia-focused independent studies. Teaching methods and creating learning objectives were the most common pedagogical content, while assessment activities were diverse. Time was the most prevalent barrier to providing training for academic careers; however, degree of student pharmacist interest, faculty inexperience, and lack of leadership support were also commonly reported. Conclusions: Colleges and schools of pharmacy vary in the extent to which they prepare student pharmacists for careers in academia. Advanced pharmacy practice experiences were the most common method of training offered. Standardization of training for academia may better promote this career path to student pharmacists.