Both educators and graduates have expressed concern about a perceived pharmacology knowledge gap that includes difficulty applying fundamental principles to clinical and research problems. Consequently, we sought to determine the extent to which current students can explain the meaning of, and appropriately apply, a subset of core concepts, and to identify any misconceptions arising from the responses. Of the twenty-four pharmacology core concepts arising from the recent international collaboration, four pharmacokinetic concepts were chosen, namely drug bioavailability, drug clearance, volume of distribution, and steady-state concentration. A total of 318 students from 11 universities across seven countries chose to participate in this study. Expert analysts identified the essential elements for each concept, then independently assessed each student's response. Teams of two experts compared their evaluations to reach a consensus and grouped misconceptions thematically. For each core concept, less than 30% of students provided responses that encompassed all essential elements. Participants found drug clearance most challenging, generally conflating it with the rate of elimination, whereas they demonstrated a better understanding of drug bioavailability. There were 34 misconception themes coded in a total of 813 statements, with volume of distribution and drug clearance producing the highest numbers (13 and 12, respectively). Overall, results suggest that students found it easier to apply the concept than to explain its meaning, which might reflect the shift from didactic to active learning approaches. These findings may be useful for educators who are developing introductory pharmacokinetic courses by providing conceptual focus and revealing common misconceptions to explicitly address.

We explored the use of a video-based reflective design in preparing first-year pharmacy students for their Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in Victoria, Australia. This involved pre-workshop activities (a recording of themselves simulating the pharmacist responding to a simple primary care problem, written reflection, review of the OSCE video examples and pre-workshop survey); workshop activities (peer feedback on videos) and post-workshop activities (summative MCQ quiz and post-workshop survey). These activities took place three weeks before their OSCE. A mixed-method study design was employed with quantitative and qualitative analyses of the surveys and a focus group. A total of 137 students (77.4%) completed the pre- and post-workshop surveys, and ten students participated in the focus group. More student participants (54%) reported feeling prepared for the OSCE post-workshop than pre-workshop (13%). The majority (92%) agreed that filming, watching and reflecting on their video allowed them to learn and improve on their skills for the OSCE. The regression analysis found that video recording submissions and written reflections correlated positively with student OSCE performances, and the video-based reflective design learning experience was perceived to be beneficial in multiple ways. Thematic analysis of the focus group data revealed that students acquired metacognitive skills through the self-assessment of their video recordings, developed an awareness of their learning and were able to identify learning strategies to prepare for their first OSCE. Fostering students’ feedback literacy could be considered in future educational designs.

In the evolving landscape of global health professions education, a significant challenge has been identified in preparing today’s graduates to excel as effective team members. This challenge is un...

This paper explored students' use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) for Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) preparation using a retrospective cohort study conducted over two years (2023–2024) across Australia and Malaysia. Results analysed OSCE grades and written self-reflections from students. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model was applied as a lens to interpret qualitative data using summative content analysis. Of 997 students, 163 (16.3%) stated they did use GenAI to prepare for OSCEs. Across both campuses, there was no significant difference in mean OSCE grades between GenAI users (79.9%, SD = 15.3) and non-GenAI users (79.6%, SD = 17.4; p = .6); however, non-GenAI users performed significantly better (p < .05) in four of the seven communication rubric criteria. Themes around mistrust or perceived inaccuracy of GenAI data for clinical application deterred use in non-users. From our results, the use of GenAI did not demonstrate additional benefits for overall OSCE preparation, suggesting the potential need for more pedagogically aligned applications of GenAI tools to maximise their utility for clinical assessment preparation.