Evaluation of Journal Club Versus Clinical Debate Activities Within Pharmacy Experiential Education.

Objective. Within pharmacy experiential education, practicing literature evaluation skills usually occurs via journal clubs. Clinical debates have gained traction as an engaging alternative during advanced pharmacy practice experiences (APPEs). The purpose of this study was to compare clinical knowledge and literature evaluation application between journal clubs and clinical debates during APPEs. Methods. This mixed-methods prospective study was conducted in fourth year pharmacy students completing inpatient general medicine APPEs at four institutions. Students participated in a journal club and clinical debate during their experience. After each, students completed a 10-item knowledge assessment. Differences in journal club and clinical debate assessment scores were analyzed. Following completion of both activities, a perception survey was administered to gauge preferences and opinions. Differences in perception survey scores for journal clubs compared to clinical debates were evaluated quantitatively and a thematic analysis was completed for qualitative responses. Results. Fifty students participated in both activities. There were no differences between journal club and clinical debate assessment scores (57.4 ± 21.0% and 62.9 ± 20.7%, respectively). Forty students completed the post-perceptions survey and globally agreed or strongly agreed that both journal clubs and clinical debates improved confidence in literature evaluation and clinical skills. Common themes identified included applicability to pharmacists’ roles and need for clear instructions and examples. Conclusion. There was no difference in knowledge assessments of journal clubs versus clinical debates and students found both activities to be beneficial. Clinical debates are a reasonable alternative to journal clubs to improve knowledge and literature evaluation skills.