1 Laboratory of Teaching and Research in Social Pharmacy (LEPFS), Department of Pharmacy, Federal University of Sergipe, Cidade Universitária “Prof. José Aloísio Campos”, Jardim Rosa Elze, São Cristóvão, SE 49100-000 Brazil
Find articles by Rafaella de Oliveira Santos Silva2 Laboratory for Innovation in Pharmaceutical Care, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Campus Maruípe, Vitória, ES 29075-910 Brazil
Find articles by Dyego Carlos Souza Anacleto de Araújo1 Laboratory of Teaching and Research in Social Pharmacy (LEPFS), Department of Pharmacy, Federal University of Sergipe, Cidade Universitária “Prof. José Aloísio Campos”, Jardim Rosa Elze, São Cristóvão, SE 49100-000 Brazil
Find articles by Pedro Wlisses dos Santos Menezes3 E Neves Consulting, Ministro Oliveira Lima, São Sebastião, Porto Alegre, RS 91060-540 Brazil
Find articles by Eugênio Rodrigo Zimmer Neves1 Laboratory of Teaching and Research in Social Pharmacy (LEPFS), Department of Pharmacy, Federal University of Sergipe, Cidade Universitária “Prof. José Aloísio Campos”, Jardim Rosa Elze, São Cristóvão, SE 49100-000 Brazil
Find articles by Divaldo Pereira de Lyra, Jr.1 Laboratory of Teaching and Research in Social Pharmacy (LEPFS), Department of Pharmacy, Federal University of Sergipe, Cidade Universitária “Prof. José Aloísio Campos”, Jardim Rosa Elze, São Cristóvão, SE 49100-000 Brazil
2 Laboratory for Innovation in Pharmaceutical Care, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Campus Maruípe, Vitória, ES 29075-910 Brazil
3 E Neves Consulting, Ministro Oliveira Lima, São Sebastião, Porto Alegre, RS 91060-540 Brazil Divaldo Pereira de Lyra, Jr., Email: moc.liamtoh@rj_aryl , Email: moc.liamg@sfu.sfpel . Corresponding author. Received 2021 Aug 30; Accepted 2021 Dec 11. Copyright © The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
Pharmacists now face the biggest challenges in the history of the profession: the use of digital technologies in pharmacy practice and education and the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019. Worldwide, pharmaceutical care and pharmacy education via digital technologies have significantly increased and will be incorporated into patient care and the teaching–learning process, respectively. Thus, in this new era of pharmacy practice and education, curricula should promote the development of specific competencies for the cognitive, conscious, and effective use of digital tools. This requires the training of “disruptive” educators, who are capable of using teaching–learning methods adapted to the digital environment and educational processes suitable for stimulating the use of effective disruptive technologies. This commentary argues that the pharmacy profession can no longer wait for the slow integration of digital technologies into pharmacy practice and education.
Keywords: COVID-19, Digital technology, Education, Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical care, Professional competence
In “The third wave in Pharmaceutical Education: the Clinical Movement,” Hepler (1987) outlined three distinct phases of pharmaceutical education: “The Empirical Era” (until 1940), “The Science Era” (1940–1970), and “The Patient Care Era” (after 1970) based on clinical pharmacy [1]. In addition, Hepler (1988) argued that technology (i.e., computers, robotics, communications, and therapeutics) and economic and social values would pose significant challenges in the future [2]. A decade later, the World Health Organization published a document entitled “Preparing the future pharmacist: curricular development,” which recommended the development of specific knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviors to support pharmacist roles in the healthcare system [3]. According to this document, the “future pharmacists” must be caregivers, decision-makers, communicators, leaders, managers, lifelong learners, and teachers. These “future pharmacists” are not the current pharmacists and are facing one of the greatest challenges in the history of the profession: the use of digital technologies in pharmacy practice and the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
During the COVID-19 pandemic, community pharmacies have become an increasingly important first point of contact with the healthcare system for individuals with health concerns or who require reliable information and advice [4, 5]. Despite continued face-to-face activities in community pharmacies during the pandemic, the need for social isolation has accelerated disruptive changes in patient care practices. Thus, the Internet and other communication media, such as phones and computers (teleconsultations), have been more frequently used to provide care to patients who are physically distant [4, 6–10].
The use of teleconsultations in pharmaceutical care has been discussed for many years [11–17]. Currently, considering the restrictions imposed to combat the pandemic and the need for broad social isolation, pharmaceutical care via teleconsultations has significantly increased worldwide. There are reports on the use of digital technologies to provide clinical pharmacy services, such as health education, chronic disease management, and medication review [4, 6–10, 18]. There is no doubt that after the pandemic, these practices will be incorporated into the patient care process in many countries. However, it is important to consider that there are different levels of access to these technologies in different countries and populations: patient factors such as economic status and digital skills may impact individuals' ability to use technology.
At present, access to electricity and the Internet represent barriers to the use of digital technologies in some countries [19–22]. Consequently, people who are economically and socially vulnerable, especially in poorer countries, may be excluded from health services provided through digital technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic [23]. In addition, there are other barriers, such as the absence of a suitable private space for teleconsultation at home and lack of awareness of this service [24]. Such issues faced by these populations are examples of digital inequality, which may arise from poor literacy, difficulty in accessing digital technologies, or a lack of active participation in the digital society. Thus, the use of technologies in pharmacy practice will occur at different “speeds” globally, as well as in different population groups. To minimize these inequalities, pharmacists must be empathetic, seek effective ways to meet the individual needs of patients, interact with physicians, and make use of technologies in transition, such as phone calls and smartphones [25]. Conversely, there are benefits to teleconsultations such as reduced travel time or effort to go to the consultation, family members being able to attend the appointment, patients may be more relaxed from home, and patients' independence (they do not have to rely on others) [24].
In addition to the use of teleconsultations, there is a growing integration of other digital technologies in pharmacy practice, such as robotic and barcode drug dispensing, patients' electronic health records, computer-based support systems for decision-making, and the use of artificial intelligence and big data [26–29]. With regard to this theme, a matter of fundamental importance and necessity is designing robust studies that seek to adopt evidence-based approaches in implementing and evaluating digital interventions from multiple perspectives, thus establishing high-quality evidence that may benefit diverse stakeholders (i.e., directors, supervisors, pharmacists, pharmacy staff, physicians, nurses, other healthcare professionals, and patients). Therefore, implementation science, behavioral theory, and multiple stakeholder perspectives are being used in pharmacy practice to support evidence-based approaches in implementing and evaluating pharmaceutical interventions/services (with or without the use of digital technologies) [28–33].
In this new wave of pharmacy practice, the curricula should promote the development of specific competencies for the cognitive, conscious, and effective use of digital tools. The intensive and pervasive use of technologies while providing pharmaceutical care to the patient will require the development of social, humanistic, and behavioral competencies (i.e., ethics, empathy, and communication skills), clinical competencies (i.e., those related to pharmacotherapy, information on medicines, patient safety, and provision of care to specific groups), and digital competency (so-called also digital literacy or e-skills) [34–37]. However, it is important to note that digital literacy devoid of humanistic competencies, such as the ability to care and interact in an uncertain environment, may exacerbate technocratic character. Thus, future pharmacists must develop empathy, a culture of care, and the ability to judge benefits and risks in a non-binary way in uncertain environments. That is, technology should be used to replace mechanical and repetitive actions, enabling pharmacists to act cognitively in an efficient way.
With regard to communication skills, it is important to emphasize that the skills needed for pharmaceutical care using technology may be different from those required for pharmaceutical care in which the patient is physically present. In some situations, the skills are similar, but they become even more significant because of the patient's physical absence. For example, in pharmaceutical care through teleconsultations using video, the professionals must be aware of issues such as: speaking slowly; using nonmedical terms (lifestyle video communication may be used, such as FaceTime®); minimizing gestures and body movements (to avoid poor viewing or blurring in the video) in full camera view; delays in communication; looking at the camera instead of looking at the screen (to maintain “eye contact”) [38, 39]. In teleconsultation through phone calls, even greater attention should be paid to auditory nonverbal skills (i.e., choice of words and tone), active counseling, and active listening, as well as posing a question in different ways [40].
In this context, the increasing incorporation of technology in pharmacy practice and new competencies necessary for technology use occur in the scenario of transition between two generations of students: generation Y (or “millennial,” born between 1981 and 1996) and generation Z (“Gen Z” or “digital natives,” born between 1997 and 2012) [41, 42]. Millennials, accounting for approximately 25% of the current workforce, are influenced by the expansion of information technology and connected global culture [43]. This generation has preferences for learning styles related to experience, technology, and entertainment [44, 45]. Gen Z individuals, who are habituated to “new” technologies, have a learning style related to observation and practice and are more worried about the appreciation of their contributions and responsibility [46–49]. Furthermore, these individuals want to ensure that their university education adds educational value, and they exhibit a low tolerance for people who do not readily understand changes [47–49].
Recent studies (commentaries) have discussed the impact of the Fourth Industrial Revolution on the pharmacy profession [26, 27]. However, these studies focused on professional practice rather than pharmaceutical education. As Hepler (1987) stated, a new wave in pharmaceutical education is not the “last word” in the training of future pharmacists for patient care challenges faced by educational institutions and professionals [1]. The new wave in pharmacy practice and education requires training disruptive educators, who are capable of using teaching methods adapted to the digital environment and using educational processes suitable for incorporating and stimulating the use of effective disruptive technologies, such as artificial intelligence, virtual reality, big data, and wearable technology, for students who are digital natives [26, 50, 51].
The use of digital technologies in pharmacy education increased after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic [52]. Due to health measures imposed by the pandemic, many pharmacy courses have increased the use of technology or changed teaching to a remote format (online and without face-to-face interactions) [53, 54]. Despite this, some barriers to the use of digital technologies in pharmacy education, such as access, infrastructure, inadequate ability to use technology, and resistance to change were also evident [55]. In addition, there are barriers related to the assessment process, such as changing assessment weighting and assessment methods (including the use of time-constrained examinations or open-book examinations), distractions during the assessment process in the home environment, educators' insecurity to provide a fair assessment among students, and limited communication and feedback from educators with students, respectively, in planning assessments and on their performance due to work overload. Conversely, the support of professors by the university, their own departments, senior professors, professors, and students with previous remote online teaching–learning experience were facilitators in the use of digital technologies in pharmacy education during the COVID-19 pandemic [56].
After the pandemic, the "new normal" of pharmacy courses will be characterized by the continuous improvement of technology through new ways (face-to-face, remote, or mixed) of teaching, monitoring, and evaluating learning [54, 57]. The hybrid teaching–learning environment combines the benefits of face-to-face and remote environments. This teaching–learning environment is feasible for pharmacy education; however, it requires consideration of the multidimensional nature of this educational method, as well as careful construction, facilitation, and optimization in response to student feedback [58].
For more than 10 years, reports from the United States have highlighted that improving the training of educators is essential for training future pharmacists [22, 59]. It is also relevant to highlight that new or renewed educators are not solely responsible for training future professionals. Moreover, it is necessary to have tutors linked to the practice of monitoring trainees in clinical care, highlighting all the possibilities for using technology to optimize patient health outcomes. In addition, it is essential to provide internships for native digital students to promote the proactivity, empathy, and co-responsibility required to meet new social needs and generate models of patient care.
Another aspect to be considered while training the new generation of digital-native pharmacists is their greater capacity for self-directed learning with a focus on using technologies aimed at care practice, such as digital serious games, virtual patient software, and virtual or augmented reality [48, 60]. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have shown that these technologies are effective in developing knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to patient care [61–66]. During this generational transition, it is necessary to recognize the numerous advantages of these tools in professional development, because these tools allow the simulation of clinical practice situations in safe and controlled environments for learning, with no risk of patient harm, but with the possibility of students' reflection as well as continuous feedback on learning and performance [62, 65–71].
Notably, the use of technology without any clearly defined pedagogical objectives does not guarantee the attainment of the desired educational goals [72]. Thus, educational technologies must be developed, evaluated, and validated synchronously to ensure the effectiveness of the proposed learning objective. In addition, technology must be integrated gradually into the curriculum and other traditional educational methods or tools at increasing levels of complexity [73–75]. Therefore, the new wave in pharmacy education might involve both analog and digital technologies for developing competencies for patient care through reading, lectures, case discussions, digital serious games, virtual patient software, virtual or augmented reality, simulated patients, and provision of care to real patients.
Pessimists argue that the Fourth Industrial Revolution, with an emphasis on automation and artificial intelligence, may lead to the extinction of traditional, mechanical, and repetitive professional practice, reducing the importance and social needs of pharmacists [26]. According to Gregório and Cavaco (2021), automation and artificial intelligence have been gradually integrated into routine practice, optimizing the time and availability of several health professionals for patient care. Thus, these authors argue that when considering that the pharmacist's role in healthcare is rooted in caring for the community, the principal issues for the future of the profession are the development of actions related to healthcare management and defending patient rights [27]. Therefore, in the new wave of pharmacy practice and education, digital pharmacists need to be empathetic and value patients as human beings. Consequently, the profession can no longer wait for the slow integration of digital technologies in pharmacy practice and education. While we have discussed this theme, the present has already become the past, and the future has become the present. In fact, the future is now!
The authors thank Alfredo Dias de Oliveira Filho, Alessandra Rezende Mesquita, Rafael Santos Santana, Thaciana dos Santos Alcântara, and researchers from the Laboratory of Teaching and Research in Social Pharmacy (LEPFS) for their contributions to this commentary.
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. In addition, the authors (ROSS, DCSAA and PWSM) received financial support (scholarship/research grant) of the Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement (CAPES), Sergipe of Federal University (UFS) and Foundation for Research and Technological Innovation Support of the State of Sergipe (FAPITEC/SE).
The authors have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
1. Hepler CD. The Third Wave in Pharmaceutical Education: The Clinical Movement. Am J Pharm Educ. 1987; 51 (4):369–385. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2. Hepler CD. Unresolved Issues in the Future of Pharmacy. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1988; 45 (5):1071–1081. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. World Health Organization. The role of the pharmacist in the health care system: preparing the future pharmacist: curricular development. World Health Organization. 1997. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/63817/WHO_PHARM_97_599.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Acessed 15.09.2020.
4. Cadogan CA, Hughes CM. On the frontline against COVID-19: Community pharmacists’ contribution during a public health crisis. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2021; 17 (1):2032–2035. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.03.015. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Zheng S, Yang L, Zhou P, et al. Recommendations and guidance for providing pharmaceutical care services during COVID-19 pandemic: A China perspective. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2021; 17 (1):1819–1824. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.03.012. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Bukhari N, Rasheed H, Nayyer B, et al. Pharmacists at the frontline beating the COVID-19 pandemic. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2020; 13 :8. doi: 10.1186/s40545-020-00210-w. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Dawoud D. Emerging from the other end: Key measures for a successful COVID-19 lockdown exit strategy and the potential contribution of pharmacists. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2021; 17 (1):1950–1953. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.05.011. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Khera A, Baum SJ, Gluckman TJ, et al. Continuity of care and outpatient management for patients with and at high risk for cardiovascular disease during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scientific statement from the American Society for Preventive Cardiology. Am J Prev Cardiol. 2020; 1 :100009. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpc.2020.100009. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Kretchy IA, Asiedu-Danso M, Kretchy J-P. Medication management and adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives and experiences from low-and middle-income countries. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2021; 17 (1):2023–2026. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.04.007. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Li H, Zheng S, Liu F, Liu W, et al. Fighting against COVID-19: Innovative strategies for clinical pharmacists. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2021; 17 (1):1813–1818. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.04.003. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Carevic KL, Harris WS, Coblio NA, et al. Telepharmacy: A New Application for Telemedicine. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1997; 72 :1116–1122. [Google Scholar]
12. Angaran DM. Telemedicine and telepharmacy: Current status and future implications. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1999; 56 (14):1405–1426. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/56.14.1405. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Thigpen AR. The evolution of telepharmacy: a paradigm shift. J Healthc Inf Manag. 1999; 13 (4):89–94. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Poudel A, Nissen L. Telepharmacy: a pharmacist’s perspective on the clinical benefits and challenges. Integr Pharm Res Pract. 2016; 5 :75–82. doi: 10.2147/IPRP.S101685. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Littauer SL, Dixon DL, Mishra VK, et al. Pharmacists providing care in the outpatient setting through telemedicine models: a narrative review. Pharm Pract (Granada) 2017; 15 (4):1134. doi: 10.18549/PharmPract.2017.04.1134. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Niznik JD, He H, Kane-Gill SL. Impact of clinical pharmacist services delivered via telemedicine in the outpatient or ambulatory care setting: A systematic review. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2018; 14 (8):707–717. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2017.10.011. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Baldoni S, Amenta R. Telepharmacy Services: Present Status and Future Perspectives: A Review. Medicina (Kaunas) 2019; 55 (7):327. doi: 10.3390/medicina55070327. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. Okoro RN. COVID-19 pandemic: The role of community pharmacists in chronic kidney disease management supportive care. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020; 17 (1):1925–1928. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.07.008. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. United Nations Development Programme. Human development for everyone. United Nations Development Programme. 2016. ISBN 978–92–1–126413–5. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf. Acessed 15.09.2020.
20. König R, Seifert A, Doh M. Internet use among older Europeans: an analysis based on SHARE data. Univers Access Inf Soc. 2018; 17 (3):621–633. doi: 10.1007/s10209-018-0609-5. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Poushter J, Bishop C, Chwe H. Social Media Use Continues to Rise in Developing Countries but Plateaus Across Developed Ones: Digital divides remain, both within and across countries. Pew Research Center. 2018. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2018/06/19/social-media-use-continues-to-rise-in-developing-countries-but-plateaus-across-developed-ones/. Acessed 15.09.2020.
22. Vanderbush RE, Anderson HG, Fant WK, et al. Implementing pharmacy informatics in college curricula: the AACP Technology in Pharmacy Education and Learning Special Interest Group. Am J Pharm Educ. 2007; 71 (6):117. doi: 10.5688/aj7106117. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Beaunoyer E, Dupéré S, Guitton MJ. COVID-19 and digital inequalities: Reciprocal impacts and mitigation strategies. Comput Human Behav. 2020; 111 :106424. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106424. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Scottish Government. Public and clinician views on video consulting - Full report. Scottish Government. 2020. https://www.gov.scot/publications/public-clinician-views-video-consultations-full-report/. Acessed 15.10.2021.
25. van de Pol JM, Geljon JG, Belitser SV, et al. Pharmacy in transition: A work sampling study of community pharmacists using smartphone technology. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019; 15 (1):70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.03.004. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Baines D, Nørgaard LS, Babar ZUD, et al. The Fourth Industrial Revolution: Will it change pharmacy practice? Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019; 16 (9):1279–1281. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.04.003. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Gregório J, Cavaco A. The pharmacists’ guide to the future: Are we there yet? Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021; 17 (4):795–798. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.05.029. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Nazar H, Evans C, Kyei N, et al. A service evaluation and stakeholder perspectives of an innovative digital minor illness referral service from NHS 111 to community pharmacy. PLoS ONE. 2020; 15 (3):e0230343. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230343. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Nazar H, Nazar Z, Yeung A, Maguire M, Connelly A, Slight SP. Consensus methodology to determine minor ailments appropriate to be directed for management within community pharmacy. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2018; 14 (11):1027–1042. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.01.001. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Stewart D, Pallivalapila A, Thomas B, et al. A theoretically informed, mixed-methods study of pharmacists' aspirations and readiness to implement pharmacist prescribing. Int J Clin Pharm. 2021; 1–13. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
31. Michel DE, Tonna AP, Dartsch DC, et al. Experiences of key stakeholders with the implementation of medication reviews in community pharmacies: A systematic review using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021; S1551–7411 (21):00275–278. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Chauhan BF, Jeyaraman MM, Mann AS, et al. Behavior change interventions and policies influencing primary healthcare professionals' practice-an overview of reviews. Implement Sci. 2017; 12 (1):3. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0538-8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. dos Santos Júnior GA, Silva ROS, Onozato T, et al. Implementation of clinical pharmacy services using problematization with Maguerez Arc: A quasi-experimental before-after study. J Eval Clin Pract. 2021; 27 (2):391–403. doi: 10.1111/jep.13448. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Nunes-da-Cunha I, Arguello B, Martinez FM, et al. Comparison of Patient-Centered Care in Pharmacy Curricula in the United States and Europe. Am J Pharm Educ. 2016; 80 (5):83. doi: 10.5688/ajpe80583. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Burke JM, Pharm D, Miller W, et al. Clinical Pharmacist Competencies. Pharmacotherapy. 2008; 28 (6):806–815. doi: 10.1592/phco.28.6.806. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Saseen JJ, Ripley TL, Bondi D, et al. ACCP Clinical Pharmacist Competencies. Pharmacothery. 2017; 37 (5):630–636. doi: 10.1002/phar.1923. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. World Health Organization. Future of digital health systems: report on the who symposium on the future of digital health systems in the European region. World Health Organization. 2019. ISBN 9789289059992. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/329032/9789289059992-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Acessed 15.09.2020.
38. Wong A, Bhyat R, Srivastava S, et al. Patient Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Use of Virtual Care. J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23 (1):e20621. doi: 10.2196/20621. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. Sharma R, Nachum S, Davidson KW, et al. It's not just FaceTime: core competencies for the Medical Virtualist. Int J Emerg Med. 2019; 12 (1):8. doi: 10.1186/s12245-019-0226-y. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. Rothwell E, Ellington L, Planalp S, et al. Exploring challenges to telehealth communication by specialists in poison information. Qual Health Res. 2012; 22 (1):67–75. doi: 10.1177/1049732311420446. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Lidija PI, Kiril P, Janeska Iliev A, et al. Establishing balance between professional and private life of Generation Z. Res Physic Ed Sport Health. 2017; 6 (1):3–9. [Google Scholar]
42. Dimock M. Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/. Acessed 16.09.2020.
43. Waljee JF, Chopra V, Saint S. Mentoring Millennials. JAMA. 2018; 319 (15):1547–1548. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.3804. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. McCurry MK, Martins DC. Teaching undergraduate nursing research: A comparison of traditional and innovative approaches for success with millennial learners. J Nurs Educ. 2010; 49 (5):272–275. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20091217-02. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Montenery SM, Walker M, Sorensen E, et al. Millennial Generation Student Nurses’ Perceptions of the Impact of Multiple Technologies on Learning. Nurs Educ Perspect. 2013; 34 (6):405–409. doi: 10.5480/10-451. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Pew Research Center. Millennials in Adulthood. Pew Research Center. 2014. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/03/07/millennials-in-adulthood/. Acessed 16.09.2020.
47. Gale SF. Forget Gen Y: Are You Ready for Gen Z?. Chief Learning Officer. 2015. https://www.chieflearningofficer.com/2015/07/07/forget-gen-y-are-you-ready-for-gen-z/. Acessed 16.09.2020.
48. Shatto B, Erwin K. Moving on From Millennials: Preparing for Generation Z. Billings DM, Kowalski K, ed. J Contin Educ Nurs. 2016; 47(6):253–4. [PubMed]
49. Schlee RP, Eveland VB, Harich KR. From Millennials to Gen Z: Changes in student attitudes about group projects. J Educ Bus. 2020; 95 (3):139–147. doi: 10.1080/08832323.2019.1622501. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Romanelli F, Tracy TS. A Coming Disruption in Pharmacy? Am J Pharm Educ. 2015; 79 (1):01. doi: 10.5688/ajpe79101. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Bughin J, Woetzel J. Navigating a world of disruption. McKinsey Global Institute. 2019. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/innovation-and-growth/navigating-a-world-of-disruption#. Acessed 16.09.2020.
52. Kawaguchi-Suzuki M, Nagai N, Akonoghrere RO, et al. COVID-19 Pandemic Challenges and Lessons Learned by Pharmacy Educators Around the Globe. Am J Pharm Educ. 2020; 84 (8):ajpe8197. doi: 10.5688/ajpe8197. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Brown LL. The immediate global impact of COVID-19 on higher education institutions and workforce development. Pharm Edu Int J Pharm Edu. 2020; 20 (2):1–2. [Google Scholar]
54. Lyons KM, Christopoulos A, Brock TP. Sustainable Pharmacy Education in the Time of COVID-19. Am J Pharm Educ. 2020; 84 (6):ajpe8088. doi: 10.5688/ajpe8088. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
56. Jaam M, Nazar Z, Rainkie DC, et al. Using Assessment Design Decision Framework in understanding the impact of rapid transition to remote education on student assessment in health-related colleges: A qualitative study. PLoS ONE. 2021; 16 (7):e0254444. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254444. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
57. Dresser JD, Burmeister P, Arya V, et al. Prioritizing Technology in Pharmacy Education: A Document Analysis of Strategic Plans. Pharmacy (Basel) 2020; 8 (4):1–11. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Nazar H, Omer U, Nazar Z, Husband A. A study to investigate the impact of a blended learning teaching approach to teach pharmacy law. Int J Pharm Pract. 2019; 27 (3):303–310. doi: 10.1111/ijpp.12503. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
59. Brazeau GA, Meyer SM, Belsey M, et al. Preparing Pharmacy Graduates for Traditional and Emerging Career Opportunities. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009; 73 (8):157. doi: 10.5688/aj7308157. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
60. Smith MA, Benedict N. Effectiveness of Educational Technology to Improve Patient Care in aPharmacy Curricula. Am J Pharm Educ. 2015; 79 (1):15. doi: 10.5688/ajpe79115. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
61. Jabbur-Lopes MO, Mesquita AR, Silva LMA, et al. Virtual patients in pharmacy education. Am J Pharm Educ. 2012; 76 (5):92. doi: 10.5688/ajpe76592. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
62. Gentry SV, Gauthier A, L’Estrade Ehrstrom B, et al. Serious Gaming and Gamification Education in Health Professions: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2019; 21 (3):e12994. doi: 10.2196/12994. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
63. Kononowicz AA, Woodham LA, Edelbring S, et al. Virtual Patient Simulations in Health Professions Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration. J Med Internet Res. 2019; 21 (7):e14676. doi: 10.2196/14676. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
64. Kyaw BM, Saxena N, Posadzki P, et al. Virtual Reality for Health Professions Education: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by the Digital Health Education Collaboration. J Med Internet Res. 2019; 21 (1):e12959. doi: 10.2196/12959. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
65. Hansen MM. Versatile, Immersive, Creative and Dynamic Virtual 3-D Healthcare Learning Environments: A Review of the Literature. J Med Internet Res. 2008; 10 (3):e26. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1051. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
66. Cook DA, Erwin PJ, Triola MM. Computerized Virtual Patients in Health Professions Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Acad Med. 2010; 85 (10):1589–1602. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181edfe13. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
67. Akl EA, Sackett KM, Pretorius R, et al. Educational games for health professionals. En: Akl EA, ed. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008; (1):CD006411. [PubMed]
68. Ekblad S, Mollica RF, Fors U, et al. Educational potential of a virtual patient system for caring for traumatized patients in primary care. BMC Med Educ. 2013; 13 :110. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-13-110. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
69. Morris BJ, Croker S, Zimmerman C, et al. Gaming science: the “Gamification” of scientific thinking. Front Psychol. 2013; 9 :607. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70. Barnett SG, Gallimore CE, Pitterle M, Morrill J. Impact of a Paper vs Virtual Simulated Patient Case on Student-Perceived Confidence and Engagement. Am J Pharm Educ. 2016; 80 (1):16. doi: 10.5688/ajpe80116. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
71. Saxena N, Kyaw BM, Vseteckova J, et al. Virtual reality environments for health professional education. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 10 :CD012090. [Google Scholar]
72. de Mello CB, Alves RO, Lemos SMA. Metodologias de ensino e formação na área da saúde: revisão de literatura. Rev CEFAC. 2014; 16 (6):2015–2028. doi: 10.1590/1982-0216201416012. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
73. Issenberg SB. The Scope of Simulation-based Healthcare Education. Simul Healthc. 2006; 1 (4):203–208. doi: 10.1097/01.SIH.0000246607.36504.5a. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
74. van Merriënboer JJG, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Med Educ. 2010; 44 (1):85–93. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03498.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
75. Huwendiek S, Duncker C, Reichert F, et al. Learner preferences regarding integrating, sequencing and aligning virtual patients with other activities in the undergraduate medical curriculum: A focus group study. Med Teach. 2013; 35 (11):920–929. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2013.826790. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group