Digital literacy within Master of Pharmacy curricula in the United Kingdom: a mixed-method study
Authors: Alowais M , Nazar H , Tolley C 
Published: April 2024

Abstract

Introduction
As digital health technologies (DHTs) like electronic health records (EHRs), computerised clinical decision support (CCDS), and telehealth become integral to healthcare delivery, there is an increasing demand for digitally literate healthcare professionals, including pharmacists. The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) has emphasised digital competencies in the United Kingdom’s (UK’s) Master of Pharmacy (MPharm) curriculum. The Health Education England (HEE) and the Topol review further emphasises this point, indicating the pressing need for a digitally ready healthcare workforce.[1,2] However, despite these efforts, evidence suggests that digital literacy remains underrepresented in undergraduate pharmacy training.

Aim
To explore the current and planned inclusion of digital literacy education in the MPharm curricula of UK pharmacy schools.

Methods
A two-phase study was conducted. Phase 1: we undertook a content analysis of curricula from all GPhC-accredited UK pharmacy schools (n=30) in April 2022. Curriculum materials were procured either directly from schools’ websites or via formal correspondence. The analytical approach was based on a preceding systematic scoping review and further refined through an inductive open coding methodology. Phase 2: a structured 14-item quantitative survey, informed by the HEE Digital Capabilities Framework for the Pharmacy Workforce, was emailed to academic representatives across all UK pharmacy institutions, soliciting data on digital literacy, pedagogical methodologies, and envisaged curriculum trajectories.

Results
Documents for the content analysis were obtained from 46.7% (14/30) of the UK pharmacy schools. Of these, 71.4% (10/14) included components of digital literacy education or training. We identified themes relating to digital literacy education including: the theoretical understanding of health informatics, applied informatics, information technology skills and the newly emerging field of DHTs including artificial intelligence, pharmacogenomics, and personalised therapies. A total of 53.3% (16/30) schools responded to the survey. Most schools who participated in the survey stated that they had integrated digital literacy into their curricula, with only one exception; alignment with the HEE framework varied. Digital literacy was typically integrated within other teaching sessions, taught through self-learning using online resources (66.7%; 12/18). EHRs and remote counselling were primary focus areas (94.4%; 17/18). Challenges in digital literacy education include expertise shortage (68.4%; 13/19), insufficient support from pharmacy organisations (68.4%; 13/19), and limited time (52.6%; 10/19).

Conclusion
Although the review of the MPharm curricula revealed evidence of UK pharmacy schools incorporating digital literacy, we identified gaps in training and education relating to the variability in topics across schools, misalignment with the HEE framework, and educators’ concerns about the adequacy of current digital literacy provisions. It is important to acknowledge that our study’s low response rate might introduce sample bias, including schools more proactive in teaching digital literacy, and may not be representative of the broader educational context. The observed gaps underscore the need for collaboration with professional bodies and industry experts to enhance training with the aim of ensuring that future pharmacists are prepared and competent to practice in the digital age.

References
1. Health Education England. Digital Capabilities for the Pharmacy Workforce. Available from: https://www.hee.nhs.uk/our-work/digital-literacy/profession-service-specific-digital-capabilities
2. Topol E. The Topol Review. Preparing the healthcare workforce to deliver the digital future. 2019:1-48. Available from: https://topol.hee.nhs.uk/