A scoping review of teaching and assessment strategies for pharmaceutical calculations in health professions education
Abstract
Objective Proficiency in pharmaceutical calculations is an essential and fundamental skill for health care professionals, as medication dosing and dispensing errors can result in serious patient harm. Despite this importance, research suggests that many health professions education (HPE) students face challenges in mastering these concepts. This scoping review aims to explore the available literature on pharmaceutical calculations, teaching and assessment strategies within HPE. Methods A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, ERIC, and CINAHL Complete. Full-text research articles were included if they involved HPE students, discussed pharmaceutical calculations in the didactic curriculum, and were available in English. Results were reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Results Seventy-three articles met the inclusion criteria, with the majority being quasi-experimental studies. Of the studies, 57.5% involved student nurses and 35.6% involved student pharmacists. Teaching strategies varied, with problem-solving approaches, simulation, and online learning being the most common. Examinations were the most frequently used assessment strategy. Competency was assessed in 33% of the studies, with thresholds ranging from 70% to 100%. Conclusion While pharmaceutical calculations education remains a crucial component of HPE curricula, this review found a lack of robust evidence supporting spec…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Mathematical competency is directly relevant to patient safety.
“This makes mathematical competency directly relevant to patient safety [2].”
From A Descriptive Website Review of Publicized PharmD Pre-Matriculation Programs (2026) · cites this paper as [2]
Cites
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565 · see citing works
Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews
Peters, M. D. J., Marnie, C., Tricco, A. C., Pollock, D., Munn, Z., Alexander, L., McInerney, P., Godfrey, C. M., & Khalil, H. (2020) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-20-00167 · Cited by 7,751 · see citing works
PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement
McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 · Cited by 5,700 · see citing works
Computer-based technology and student engagement: a critical review of the literature
Schindler, L. A., Burkholder, G. J., Morad, O. A., & Marsh, C. (2017) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-017-0063-0 · Cited by 475 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Descriptive Website Review of Publicized PharmD Pre-Matriculation Programs
Bessard, C. C., Oliver, K. B., Yu, F., & Fujiwara, R. (2026) · Pharmacy · doi:10.3390/pharmacy14060131
- Authors
- Fredrickson, M. E., Nogid, A., Wu, S., Peddi, A. N., Whitney, R., Gratz, M., & Wisniewski, J. N.
- Affiliations
- Northeast Ohio Medical University (US)
- Fairleigh Dickinson University (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
- Medical University of South Carolina (US)
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Fredrickson, Mary E.
- Nogid, Anna
- Wu, Sharon
- Peddi, Apryl N.
- Whitney, Rachel
- Gratz, Melissa
- Wisniewski, Jennifer N.
- Venue
- American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2025-08
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 101430
- ISSN
- 0002-9459 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4411077367
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 1.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Keywords
- medication calculation, drug dosing, teaching methods, assessment methods, health professions education, nursing students, pharmacy students, simulation-based training, online learning, problem-solving instruction, competency assessment, medication errors
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Competence, Curriculum, Education, Pharmacy, Educational Measurement, Health Occupations, Health Personnel, Humans, Medication Errors, Students, Pharmacy, Teaching, Drug Dosage Calculations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
