UCSF

Objective. To compare student performance measures and perceptions of learning in 2 content areas, conventional and integrated pharmacy curricula, at a single institution.Methods. Prospective cohort study of pharmacy students enrolled in either conventional (cohort C) or integrated (cohort I) curricula. Summative examination performance in the neuropsychiatric and infectious diseases courses, student self-rating of confidence and comfort in integrating and applying knowledge, and performance on a delayed knowledge assessment were compared between cohorts.Results. Cohort I students performed significantly lower on summative assessments compared to cohort C (78.4±9.1 vs 84.5±8.3, respectively). Prior to the integrated course, cohort I students rated themselves as significantly less confident and comfortable in knowledge integration, application, and communication compared to cohort C students; these differences were attenuated in a follow-up survey, although some remained significant. There was no difference between cohorts in performance on objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) or on a delayed knowledge assessment of neuropsychiatric and infectious diseases content.Conclusion. Pharmacy students in an integrated curriculum initially performed modestly worse in summative assessments and self-assessed their baseline knowledge as lower than did students in a conventional curriculum. However, differences in self-rated knowledge decreased at follow-up, and performance of the two cohorts on OSCEs and a delayed examination was similar. As pharmacy curricula shift towards integrated models, institutions should also consider evaluating experiential performance outcomes and student motivation to fully assess the impact of these transitions.