(16) US Schools of Pharmacy NAPLEX-preparation Course Similarities and Differences

Primary Author(s)

SS

Sarah A. Spinler, PharmD, FCCP, FAHA, FSHP, AACC

Co-Chair, Department of Pharmacy Practice
Binghamton University, The State University of New York
Binghamton, NY, United States

Co-Author(s)

MK

Michael P. Kelsch, PharmD

Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, Professor
North Dakota State University School of Pharmacy, United States
Lisa Lebovitz, JD, MS

Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs and Assessment
University of Maryland
Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Aleda M. H. Chen, RPh, PharmD, PhD

Associate Dean, Professor of Pharmacy Practice
Cedarville University
Cedarville, OH, United States
Diana M. Sobieraj, PharmD, FCCP (she/her/hers)

Director of Assessment and Associate Professor
University of Connecticut
Storrs, CT, United States

Objective : To characterize the structure and content of NAPLEX-preparation courses within a sample of accredited US schools of Pharmacy.

Methods: Schools voluntarily submitted their syllabi through a survey regarding NAPLEX preparation resources. Investigators independently summarized course structure, content, resources, and assessments, then met to achieve consensus when necessary. Schools were individually contacted for clarification/verification of the summarized characteristics. Data abstracted included structure/content (credits, learning outcomes, timing, focus, delivery method, content provider, content details, MPJE prep inclusion); resources (vendor, book); assessments (grading, level of stakes, proctoring, length of time, and pre-NAPLEX/MPJE inclusion). Descriptive analysis was utilized.

Results: Schools (n=20) represented a cross-section of the academy: 4 midwest, 5 northeast, 9 south, 2 west; 11 established pre-2000; 11 private and 9 public. Most schools (70%, 14/20) conducted a longitudinal course; 60% (12/20) had a mixture of topics in addition to NAPLEX prep; 70% included law content. Format was hybrid (65%, 13/20) at most, and contained a mixture of vendor and faculty content (55%, 11/20). While 65% (13/20) had live case discussions, only 50% had reflections/professional development; 25% (5/20) included content on test-taking strategies, and 15% (3/20) had NAPLEX competencies as learning outcomes. UWorld/RxPrep was the vendor of choice for 90% of schools (18/20) with 45% (9/20) requiring their book and providing the online self-study subscription. The NAPLEX prep courses were graded pass/fail and high stakes (delayed/withheld graduation) at 75% of schools (15/20). Only 35% (7/20) required NABP’s pre-NAPLEX.

Conclusions: Although structure and content of NAPLEX preparatory courses was variable across US schools of pharmacy the majority grade on a pass/fail basis, rely on vendor resources, and have high stakes associated with course completion.