OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of a debate on pharmacy students' perceptions, using online pharmacy practice as the debate topic. METHODS: This is a quasi-experimental interrupted time-series study. A 60 min debate was organized as a lunchtime meeting. A four-category Likert scale questionnaire (fully agree, partially agree, partially disagree, fully disagree) measured the debate participants' level of agreement with 25 statements (main issues associated with online pharmacy) in the pre-phase (before the debate), post-phase 1 (after the debate) and post-phase 2 (6 months after the debate). One hundred and seventy-seven students were recruited (response rate of 100% in the pre-phase and post-phase 1, 31% in post-phase 2). Four questions measured the perceptions of the students on this pedagogical technique. KEY FINDINGS: The overall proportion of respondents in favour of online pharmacy practice showed little variation among the three phases. However, on average (mean ± SD) 43 ± 8% of the respondents changed their opinion, 21 ± 7% reversed their opinion, 22 ± 4% nuanced their opinion and 1 ± 1% radically changed their opinion. Respectively 98% (post-phase 1) and 96% (post-phase 2) of the respondents were of the opinion that debate was a very useful teaching formula in their pharmacist training and 79 and 66% thought debate significantly changed their opinion of the issue. CONCLUSIONS: Few data have been collected on the use of debates as part of healthcare professional training. The impact of a debate on how pharmacy students feel about online pharmacy practice is described.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of a debate on pharmacy students' perceptions, using online pharmacy practice as the debate topic. METHODS: This is a quasi-experimental interrupted time-series study. A 60 min debate was organized as a lunchtime meeting. A four-category Likert scale questionnaire (fully agree, partially agree, partially disagree, fully disagree) measured the debate participants' level of agreement with 25 statements (main issues associated with online pharmacy) in the pre-phase (before the debate), post-phase 1 (after the debate) and post-phase 2 (6 months after the debate). One hundred and seventy-seven students were recruited (response rate of 100% in the pre-phase and post-phase 1, 31% in post-phase 2). Four questions measured the perceptions of the students on this pedagogical technique. KEY FINDINGS: The overall proportion of respondents in favour of online pharmacy practice showed little variation among the three phases. However, on average (mean ± SD) 43 ± 8% of the respondents changed their opinion, 21 ± 7% reversed their opinion, 22 ± 4% nuanced their opinion and 1 ± 1% radically changed their opinion. Respectively 98% (post-phase 1) and 96% (post-phase 2) of the respondents were of the opinion that debate was a very useful teaching formula in their pharmacist training and 79 and 66% thought debate significantly changed their opinion of the issue. CONCLUSIONS: Few data have been collected on the use of debates as part of healthcare professional training. The impact of a debate on how pharmacy students feel about online pharmacy practice is described.