Exploration of pharmaceutical graduate course teaching reform under the concept of translational medicine: a case study of the ‘biopharmaceuticals and translational medicine’ course

Abstract

Background

Pharmaceutical graduate education often faces a gap between basic theoretical knowledge and the practical realities of drug research, resulting in a limited understanding of new drug development among graduate students. Therefore, it is necessary to implement pharmaceutical education based on the principles and practices of translational medicine to help students gain a deeper understanding of the drug development process and to cultivate professionals capable of translating basic research findings into clinical applications.

Methods

Pharmaceutical graduate students at Campus A (172 students) were taught using traditional methods, while students at Campus B (203 students) were taught using a reformed approach. The reformed class focused on building an interdisciplinary teaching team, selecting faculty with experience in new drug development and a background in translational medicine, to strengthen the connection between clinical and basic research. Additionally, the course content was designed to reflect the latest advancements in the field, breaking away from traditional textbooks. Various disease models were used to explain the application of translational medicine in pharmacy. The course employed a variety of teaching methods, including theoretical lectures, interactive seminars, case discussions, and expert-led workshops, to enhance students’ understanding of cutting-edge topics and stimulate innovative thinking while addressing real-world clinical issues. Finally, the assessment focused on process-oriented evaluation, using group presentations, literature reviews, and other diverse methods to comprehensively assess both academic and practical abilities.

Results

The comparison of theoretical knowledge exam scores (converted to a percentage scale) between the traditional and reformed class revealed a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05), indicating that students in the reformed class had a better grasp of the theoretical knowledge. In the innovative drug development proposal project, the traditional class consisted of 17 teams, while the reformed class had 20 teams. The independent t-test showed a significant difference in the average scores between the two groups (P < 0.01), suggesting that the reformed class developed stronger drug development strategies based on clinical problems. Furthermore, the results of the student satisfaction survey indicated that students in the reformed class responded positively to the new teaching methods, with only a single-digit number of students reporting dissatisfaction, indicating broad acceptance.

Conclusions

The reform of the pharmaceutical graduate course “Biopharmaceuticals and Translational Medicine,” based on the principles of translational medicine, not only enhances students’ understanding of the drug development process but also better prepares them for careers in pharmaceutical research and clinical applications.

Introduction

Pharmacy, an interdisciplinary field driven by clinical needs, integrates multiple disciplines and advances rapidly in knowledge and technology, placing high demands on graduate student training. However, current pharmacy graduate education often fails to align with the field’s evolution and the practical demands of new drug development. A key challenge is that many students lack a deep understanding of drug translation processes, perceiving research as merely producing publishable papers rather than addressing real-world pharmaceutical needs [1]. To bridge this gap, we propose a reform grounded in translational medicine, a paradigm first articulated by Elias Zerhouni, former NIH director, which bridges basic research and clinical practice by prioritizing clinical needs and fostering efficient pathways from research to therapeutic applications [2, 3]. This approach, increasingly adopted globally to accelerate innovation [4], aligns with pharmacy’s shift toward interdisciplinary collaboration and the “bench-to-bedside” continuum, linking laboratory discoveries to patient care [5, 6].

Against this backdrop, we reformed the pharmacy graduate curriculum, transforming Advances in Pharmacy into Biopharmaceuticals and Translational Medicine. This initiative aims to instill a translational mindset, enhancing students’ ability to address clinical needs in drug development and prepare them for impactful contributions to the field.

Methods

Participants

In the fall of 2024, Wenzhou Medical University enrolled a total of 375 graduate students in its pharmacy program. Of these, 203 students were based at the Chashan Campus headquarters (Campus B), while 172 were distributed across other campuses, including affiliated hospitals, the Oujiang Laboratory, and various research institutes (collectively referred to as Campus A). Students at both campuses were admitted based on the same entrance examination standards, with no statistically significant differences in their admission scores.

We enrolled students at the Chashan Campus (Campus B) in the updated Biopharmaceuticals and Translational Medicine course syllabus and refer to them herein as the ‘reformed class.’ We allowed students at the other campuses (Campus A) to continue with the existing Advances in Pharmacy course content and teaching model, referring to them as the ‘traditional class.’ We assigned teams of eight instructors to teach both the traditional and reformed classes. We retained six instructors from the traditional class and added two new instructors, ensuring that all members of the reformed teaching team possessed experience in new drug development and backgrounds in translational medicine, an approach informed by interdisciplinary training models in pharmacy education [1].

Study design

We designed both the traditional (Table 1) and reformed (Table 2) classes to consist of 32 instructional hours, divided into eight modules of 4 h each, with each hour lasting 40 min. We assigned both courses 2 academic credits, an approach informed by active learning strategies demonstrated to enhance student performance in science education [7]. We ensured that neither the traditional nor the reformed class relied on a fixed textbook. Instead, we instructed instructors to prepare course content based on disciplinary advancements, the latest literature, and specific course objectives, an approach informed by competency-based education models in pharmacy [8].

Table 1.

Traditional class educational plan

Educational plan
Course: Advances in Pharmacy
Target trainees: Pharmacy postgraduate student, Campus A, Wenzhou Medical University
Modules: 8	Class duration: 40 min x 4	Course duration: 2 months
Project aim: To equip pharmacy graduate students with a comprehensive understanding of the latest developments across various pharmacy fields and to develop their ability to track, analyze, and apply emerging advancements in the pharmaceutical industry.
Syllabus
This course is designed to enhance pharmacy graduate students’ ability to critically analyze and solve complex problems in pharmaceutical sciences. Focusing on the latest developments in genetic engineering drugs, proteomics, targeted drug therapy, and advanced pharmacological research, students will explore key topics through Literature-based Learning (LBL). Participants are expected to understand core concepts, integrate their knowledge, and apply it to interdisciplinary pharmaceutical challenges, bridging the gap between research and clinical application.
Modules	Contents
Advances in Growth Factors and Tissue Repair Research	● Classification and mechanisms of action of growth factors ● Recent advancements in the use of growth factors in tissue repair ● Growth factors and stem cells in tissue repair
Advances in Autoimmune Drug Research	● Limitations of current autoimmune therapies and emerging treatment modalities. ●Development of biologics and immune modulators in autoimmune disease management. ●Personalized medicine and the role of genetic and immunologic factors in therapy. ●Preclinical and clinical progress in novel drug treatments for autoimmune diseases.
Advances in Stroke Drug Research	● Pathological mechanisms of stroke and current drug therapies ● New neuroprotective drugs in research ● Research on thrombolytics and post-stroke recovery drugs
Advances in Anticancer Drug Research	● Limitations of traditional anticancer drugs and trends in new drug development ● Immunotherapy and targeted therapy ● Preclinical and clinical applications of novel anticancer drugs
Advances in Vaccine Research	●Cutting-edge vaccine technologies, including mRNA, vector-based, and protein subunit vaccines. ●Innovations in adjuvant systems and their role in enhancing immune response. ●Challenges and strategies in developing vaccines for complex diseases (e.g., cancer, emerging infections). ●Clinical trials and regulatory issues in the development of novel vaccines.
Advances in Drug Target Discovery and Targeted Drug Development	● Modern techniques in drug target discovery (e.g., CRISPR, genomics) ● Development and clinical application of targeted drugs ● Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of targeted drugs
Advances in Proteomics in Pharmaceutical Research	● Basic concepts and technical methods in proteomics (e.g., mass spectrometry, chip technology) ● Application of proteomics in drug target discovery ● Potential of proteomics in personalized medicine
Advances in the Application of the Human Genome Project in Disease	● Overview and major breakthroughs of the Human Genome Project ● Advances in genomics for disease treatment ● Genomic data and clinical decision-making: from genomic information to precision medicine ●Future trends in genomic technology and its impact on pharmaceutical research

Table 2.

The reformed class educational plan

Educational plan
Course: Biopharmaceuticals and Translational Medicine
Target trainees: Pharmacy postgraduate student, Campus B, Wenzhou Medical University
Modules: 8	Class duration: 40 min x 4	Course duration: 2 months
Project aim: To bridge foundational pharmaceutical sciences with clinical application. By integrating translational medicine principles, the course cultivates students’ ability to translate research into therapeutic strategies, enhancing their understanding of drug development, regulatory pathways, and the clinical impact of biopharmaceutical innovations.
Syllabus
This course provides an in-depth exploration of translational medicine in biopharmaceuticals, focusing on the development and clinical application of therapies. Topics include growth factors, autoimmune diseases, stroke treatments, anticancer drugs, vaccines, cell therapies, targeted drug delivery, and gene editing technologies. Students will learn how basic research is translated into clinical practice, with emphasis on precision medicine, new therapeutic strategies, and the challenges of clinical trials and drug development. The course aims to equip students with the knowledge to apply translational medicine in pharmaceutical research and development.
Modules	Contents
Exploration and Reflection on the Translational Medicine Research Model for Original Growth Factor Drugs in China	• Background and current development of growth factor drugs in China and internationally • Clinical application of growth factor drugs from a translational medicine perspective: From basic research to clinical treatment • Innovations and challenges in China’s translational research on growth factor drugs • Clinical trial progress of growth factor drugs in tissue repair, cancer, and other diseases
Autoimmune Diseases and Translational Medicine	• Mechanisms of autoimmune diseases and the current state of treatment • The application of translational medicine in autoimmune diseases: From preclinical research to clinical translation • Development and application of new immunomodulatory drugs • Translational medicine’s role in advancing precision treatment for autoimmune diseases
Stroke Drugs and Translational Medicine	• Pathogenesis of stroke and the current state of drug treatments • The key role of translational medicine in stroke drug development: Drug screening and clinical trials • Translational progress in neuroprotective drugs, thrombolytic drugs, and recovery therapies • Clinical translation challenges and future trends in stroke drug treatment
Research Progress of Anticancer Drugs and Translational Medicine	• Discovery of targets and development of anticancer drugs • The role of translational medicine in anticancer drug development: From preclinical research to clinical application • Application of immunotherapies (e.g., immune checkpoint inhibitors, CAR-T cell therapies) in translational medicine • Translational medicine’s contribution to clinical trials of anticancer drugs and associated challenges
Vaccine Development and Translational Medicine	• The scientific foundation of vaccine design and clinical application translation • The translational medicine research model in vaccine development, from research to clinical use • Translational progress in new types of vaccines (e.g., mRNA vaccines, cancer vaccines) • Clinical trial design and translational challenges in vaccine development
Targeted Drug Delivery Systems and Translational Medicine	• Background of targeted drug delivery systems and their application in translational medicine • Applications of nanomedicine in targeted drug delivery for cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and more • Translational challenges: Pharmacokinetics, drug targeting, and safety from laboratory to clinical application • Future directions and clinical prospects of targeted drug delivery systems
Cell Therapy and Its Application in Translational Medicine	• The research background and development status of cell therapies • Clinical applications of stem cell therapy in translational medicine (e.g., spinal cord injury, heart disease, cancer) • Clinical translation of cell therapies: Safety, efficacy, and ethical issues • Integration of cell therapy with personalized medicine and its challenges
Gene Editing Technologies and Translational Medicine	• Principles and applications of gene editing technologies (e.g., CRISPR/Cas9) • Translational medicine applications of gene therapy in genetic diseases and cancer • Ethical, legal, and social issues related to gene editing technologies • The role of gene editing technologies in advancing precision medicine and personalized treatment

Instructional implementation

Study group formation

We divided participants into two cohorts based on campus distribution, as outlined in the Methods section: the traditional class (Campus A) with 172 students and the reformed class (Campus B) with 203 students. We organized students into small groups, with each group comprising either 10 or 11 members. This resulted in 17 groups for Campus A and 20 groups for Campus B. We required every group to appoint one leader and one vice-leader to oversee coordination and activities. Additionally, we encouraged each group to establish its own communication platform to facilitate collaboration and academic exchange throughout the course.

Traditional method for Campus A (taking the ‘Advances in Anticancer Drug Research’ module as an example)

We implemented the Advances in Anticancer Drug Research module in Campus A, adopting a literature-based learning (LBL) approach consistent with evidence on its effectiveness in fostering critical analysis in science education [9]. This four-hour module introduces students to current trends in anticancer drug development, highlighting limitations of conventional chemotherapy and the rise of novel modalities such as immunotherapy and targeted therapies. The session centers on critical analysis of high-impact research papers, enabling students to evaluate the evolving landscape of cancer therapeutics. Instructors emphasize key challenges, including drug resistance, mechanisms of action, and the integration of molecular therapies into clinical practice, fostering a comprehensive understanding of the field’s opportunities and constraints.

Following the instructor-led lecture, students engage in small-group discussions to share insights and debate recent developments in cancer research. These discussions focus on high-impact articles and pivotal issues in cancer therapeutics, promoting collaborative learning and critical evaluation of emerging technologies and treatment strategies. Instructors guide the discourse, providing expert insights and ensuring students develop the analytical skills needed to assess both scientific and clinical implications. Targeted feedback is provided to each group, encouraging deeper exploration of specific topics. By the module’s conclusion, students are expected to demonstrate heightened awareness of current cancer research and refined critical thinking skills, equipping them for academic contributions to oncology.

Reformed approach for Campus B (taking the ‘Research Progress of Anticancer Drugs and Translational Medicine’ module as an example)

We implemented the Research Progress of Anticancer Drugs and Translational Medicine module in Campus B, designing to immerse students in the complexities of translating basic research into clinical applications within the drug development pipeline. This four-hour module cultivates a clinical needs-driven research mindset, encouraging students to identify real-world clinical challenges and explore new research opportunities through rigorous scientific inquiry. The curriculum bridges the gap between pharmaceutical research and clinical practice, emphasizing alignment of each development stage with clinical realities. By the end, students gain a clearer understanding of how pharmaceutical innovations address technical bottlenecks, resolve scientific unknowns, and meet clinical demands, enhancing their capacity to contribute to both basic and applied research.

The module integrates lectures, interactive discussions, and case-based learning. The first two hours feature an instructor-led session exploring challenges in translating laboratory findings to clinical settings, with a focus on recent advances in anticancer drug research. This is followed by a one-hour live online seminar with industry experts and scholars. Students prepare by viewing a pre-recorded expert lecture, arriving with questions to fuel active participation in the live discussion. This flipped classroom approach fosters engagement and critical thinking, as supported by research on flipped classrooms in health professions education [10] and competency-based learning in pharmacy [8]. The final hour involves seminar-style group discussions, where students analyze translational aspects of anticancer drug research, identify gaps in current therapies, and propose novel research directions. Instructors serve as both knowledge providers and facilitators, guiding critical thinking and collaborative problem-solving. These activities stimulate innovative thinking and encourage the development of research proposals linking basic science to clinical applications.

Through this interactive and collaborative framework, students strengthen their translational research skills, preparing them to address future challenges in anticancer drug development and contribute to clinical advancements. The module equips them to approach drug development holistically, integrating scientific and clinical perspectives for real-world impact.

Traditional method vs. Reformed approach: key differences

Teaching focus

Traditional method

Emphasizes theoretical knowledge acquisition through passive learning, with students focusing on memorizing and understanding core concepts delivered by the instructor.

Reformed approach

Prioritizes active, student-centered learning, fostering critical thinking, problem-solving, and translational research skills, aligning with evidence that active learning enhances performance in pharmaceutical education [7].

Course structure

Traditional method

Predominantly lecture-driven, focusing on foundational knowledge and basic principles, with the instructor directing content flow and minimal student participation.

Reformed approach

Features a dynamic structure incorporating lectures, case-based learning, group discussions, and interactive seminars, enhanced by expert-led sessions and a flipped classroom model to promote pre-class preparation and active engagement.

Student engagement

Traditional method

Positions students as passive recipients, with active engagement limited to brief question-and-answer sessions or occasional discussions.

Reformed approach

Encourages active participation through group discussions, collaborative case analyses, and problem-solving tasks, empowering students to formulate questions, analyze real-world challenges, and propose research directions.

Application of knowledge

Traditional method

Centers on theoretical comprehension of anticancer drug research, with limited emphasis on practical or clinical relevance.

Reformed approach

Focuses on bridging basic research and clinical practice, engaging students in developing research proposals and addressing authentic clinical challenges in drug development.

Expert involvement

Traditional method

Rarely incorporates external experts or industry professionals into the instructional process.

Reformed approach

Integrates live online seminars with industry experts and scholars, enabling direct interaction within a flipped classroom framework where students prepare in advance and participate in guided discussions.

Teaching methods

Traditional method

Relies primarily on didactic, lecture-based delivery of structured content by the instructor.

Reformed approach

Employs diverse active learning strategies, including flipped classrooms, case studies, group seminars, and expert-led discussions, designed to enhance critical thinking and collaboration.

Learning outcomes

Traditional method

Aims for mastery of theoretical knowledge and fundamental concepts in drug research.

Reformed approach

Targets not only theoretical understanding but also the development of translational research competencies, critical thinking, and the capacity to tackle real-world clinical challenges in drug development.

Comparative assessment methods for traditional and reformed approaches

We designed assessment for both the traditional and reformed classes to comprise three components: an individual exam, a literature review, and a group-based innovative biologic drug design proposal. While the core structure is similar, key differences reflect the distinct pedagogical emphases of each approach.

In the traditional class (Campus A), we used the individual exam to evaluate students’ mastery of course material, focusing on theoretical knowledge. We required each student to select a topic within their research field and synthesize recent advancements, emphasizing current developments in areas such as anticancer drug research. For both the traditional and reformed classes, we individually scored the literature review component based on predefined criteria, without conducting statistical comparisons between the groups. We tasked the innovative biologic drug design proposal, completed collaboratively in groups, to involve crafting a preliminary design presented to an expert panel. We ensured evaluation followed a predefined rubric, with feedback centered on scientific merit and conceptual understanding.

The reformed class (Campus B) mirrors this framework, but we adapted it to prioritize translational perspectives, drawing on problem-based learning approaches shown to bridge research and practice in pharmacy [11]. The individual exam similarly tests course content knowledge, ensuring comparability with the traditional class. However, the literature review shifts focus to clinical challenges within the field—such as emerging treatment targets or novel drug mechanisms in oncology—prompting students to critically engage with translational research and its clinical applications. The group project, an innovative biologic drug design proposal, parallels the traditional task but emphasizes addressing real-world clinical needs. Presentations are assessed by experts using specific criteria (Table 3) that prioritize innovation, feasibility, and clinical relevance.

Table 3.

Scoring criteria for innovative drug development proposal

Item and Score		Criteria Description	Rating Criteria
Maximum Score 100			Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Topic (20 points)	Relevance (5 points)	The clinical problem is important, and the research solution must be relevant to the current medical environment and important clinical issues.	5	4	2–3	0–1
	Creativity (5 points)	The proposal introduces innovative concepts and new approaches to solve clinical problems.	5	4	2–3	0–1
	Feasibility (10 points)	The solution is scientifically sound, practical, and feasible based on current technologies and resources.	8–10	5–7	3–4	1–2
Design (50 points)	Selecting the Right Target (10 points)	The chosen target is relevant to the clinical problem, and the mechanism of action is fully understood.	8–10	5–7	3–4	1–2
	Mechanism of Action (10 points)	Describes the mechanism of drug action scientifically, reasonably, and comprehensively, considering how the drug acts within the biological system.	8–10	5–7	3–4	1–2
	Coherence (10 points)	The proposal demonstrates scientific design and feasibility, and shows evidence of how the drug achieves its intended effect.	8–10	5–7	3–4	1–2
	Expected Outcome (10 points)	Clearly explains the expected effects of the drug and discusses its alignment with the clinical problem being addressed.	8–10	5–7	3–4	1–2
	Creativity (10 points)	The proposal is creative, offering new strategies or methods to address the clinical issue.	8–10	5–7	3–4	1–2
Feasibility (20 points)	Technical Feasibility (5 points)	The proposal presents a solution based on current biotechnology, considering the feasibility of technology and the cost-effectiveness of implementation.	5	4	2–3	0–1
	Production Feasibility (5 points)	The proposal demonstrates the feasibility of the drug’s production process, considering scale, production capacity, and technical limitations.	5	4	2–3	0–1
	Market Applicability (5 points)	The drug is applicable to the target market, demonstrating the ability to meet actual demand.	5	4	2–3	0–1
	Social Impact (5 points)	The proposal considers the potential social impact of the drug, such as public health, safety, and ethical concerns.	5	4	2–3	0–1
Presentation and Documentation (10 points)	Clarity and Organization (5 points)	The proposal is clearly written and well-organized with supporting data and explanations.	5	4	2–3	0–1
	Documentation and Proof (5 points)	Relevant references and supporting documents are provided, including safety evaluations and feasibility reports.	5	4	2–3	0–1

Exam content remains consistent across both groups to ensure fairness. For example, in the Advances in Anticancer Drug Research module (traditional) and its reformed counterpart, core topics align, and examination questions are identical. These shared elements allow direct comparison of foundational knowledge mastery. However, the broader assessment strategies diverge to reflect each group’s learning objectives: the traditional approach underscores theoretical comprehension, while the reformative approach integrates clinical applicability and translational impact, aligning with its focus on real-world problem-solving.

Survey on student satisfaction with the reformed teaching approach

To assess student satisfaction and the impact of the reformed teaching approach on their learning experience, we administered a questionnaire to participants in the reformed class (Campus B). We designed the survey to comprise questions evaluating key course elements, including the effectiveness of interactive and case-based learning, expert-led seminars, and the flipped classroom model. We developed the questionnaire based on frameworks from pharmacy education literature [12] and piloted it with 10 students to refine clarity, reviewing response consistency to ensure internal validity. Students provided feedback on their perceptions of the course content, teaching methods, and overall educational experience. The survey specifically aimed to gauge the extent to which the reformed approach enhanced their understanding of clinical applications in drug research and fostered critical thinking and problem-solving skills in translational research. These findings are critical for evaluating the reformed methodology’s efficacy in preparing students for real-world challenges in drug development.

Statistical analysis

Data collected from the traditional (Area A) and reformed (Campus B) groups were analyzed to compare the effectiveness of the two teaching approaches. Theoretical knowledge exam scores from the first six modules, converted to a percentage scale, were evaluated using an independent samples t-test to assess differences in performance between the groups. Similarly, scores from the innovative drug development proposals, averaged after excluding each team’s highest and lowest scores, were compared using an independent samples t-test. Both analyses tested for statistical significance at an alpha level of 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS (version 23.0, Chicago, IL, USA) ensuring robust evaluation of the reformed approach’s impact on learning outcomes.

Results

Theoretical knowledge exam scores

We converted scores from the first six modules, where exam content was identical for both the traditional (Campus A) and reformed (Campus B) groups, to a percentage scale for comparison. We performed an independent samples t-test to evaluate differences in performance between the two groups. The analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in theoretical knowledge exam scores, with the reformed class (n = 203) achieving a mean score of 82.3% (standard deviation, SD = 7.2), while the traditional class (n = 172) scored a mean of 74.5% (SD = 8.4) (P < 0.05) (Fig. 1). These results indicate that the reformed teaching approach significantly enhanced students’ mastery of theoretical content across the initial six modules.

Fig. 1.

Comparison of Theoretical Knowledge Exam Scores (First Six Modules). The figure shows the comparison of average scores from the first six modules between the two classes, converted to percentages. The reformed class (n = 203) achieved a mean score of 82.3% (SD = 7.2), while the traditional class (n = 172) scored a mean of 74.5% (SD = 8.4), with the difference being statistically significant (*P < 0.05, independent samples t-test). Error bars represent standard deviations

Comparison of innovative drug development proposal scores

The traditional class (Campus A) included 172 students organized into 17 teams, while the reformed class (Campus B) comprised 203 students divided into 20 teams. A panel of eight instructors evaluated the innovative drug development proposals using a standardized 100-point rubric. To ensure fairness, we excluded the highest and lowest scores for each team and calculated the mean of the remaining scores. An independent samples t-test comparing the mean scores between the traditional and reformed class revealed a statistically significant difference (P < 0.01), suggesting that the reformed approach significantly enhanced students’ performance in designing innovative drug development proposals (Table 4).

Table 4.

Innovative drug development proposal scores between two groups

	Traditional class	Reformed class
Group 1	78	83
Group 2	80	82
Group 3	76	85
Group 4	81	86
Group 5	82	83
Group 6	79	80
Group 7	74	79
Group 8	80	81
Group 9	83	83
Group 10	77	84
Group 11	77	84
Group 12	79	86
Group 13	81	85
Group 14	80	82
Group 15	76	80
Group 16	82	81
Group 17	81	84
Group 18		85
Group 19		85
Group 20		83
Mean score (± SD)	79.18 ± 2.43	83.05 ± 2.01
	P < 0.01**

^**The P-value for the comparison of Innovative drug development proposal scores between traditional class and reformed class

Satisfaction survey

We administered a satisfaction survey to students in the reformed class (Campus B) to assess their perceptions of the reformed teaching approach. We presented student satisfaction survey responses from the reformed class in Table 5 to evaluate perceptions of the teaching methodology. The results demonstrated a positive response, with students reporting high satisfaction with both the teaching methods and course design; only a single-digit number of students selected ‘disagree’ for specific items. These findings suggest that the reformed teaching approach was broadly well-received, aligning with evidence on student engagement in health sciences education [9].

Table 5.

Result of reformative group satisfaction survey questionnaire

Item	Strongly disagree	Disagree	Neutral	Agree	Strongly agree
The course helped me better understand the connection between basic research and clinical applications.		1	12	156	34
The integration of expert seminars and flipped classroom methods enhanced my learning experience.			10	137	56
The case-based learning and group discussions improved my ability to critically analyze real-world clinical challenges.			9	133	61
I feel more confident in identifying clinical problems and proposing research solutions after completing the course.			9	122	72
The focus on translational research during the course helped me gain practical insights into drug development.		1	11	123	68
The interactive nature of the course (seminars, group work, etc.) increased my engagement and participation in learning.			9	96	98
The course has improved my ability to collaborate with peers on complex research topics related to drug development.			10	108	85
The feedback provided during the group presentations helped me improve my research and presentation skills.			14	134	55
I feel that the course has prepared me for future challenges in the field of drug research.		4	13	97	89
The course content and structure fostered critical thinking and innovation in addressing clinical problems.			15	146	42
The blend of theoretical knowledge and practical application in the course was well balanced and effective for my learning.		3	16	137	47
I believe the reformed approach helped me develop a clearer understanding of how pharmaceutical technologies can meet clinical needs.		1	13	137	52

Discussion

The reformed teaching approach, rooted in translational medicine, significantly enhances pharmacy graduate students’ theoretical knowledge, innovative drug development skills, and satisfaction compared to traditional methods. The reformed class (Campus B) outperformed the traditional class (Campus A) in theoretical exam scores (P < 0.05), supported by evidence that active learning strategies, such as case-based discussions and flipped classrooms, improve comprehension and retention [7]. This aligns with findings on interactive pedagogies boosting cognitive engagement in STEM, including pharmacy [13], highlighting the reform’s focus on student-centered learning.

The reformed class’s superior performance in the innovative drug development proposal task (P < 0.01) confirms that we effectively integrated translational principles, mirroring the “bench-to-bedside” framework [5] and emphasizing clinical problem-solving [1, 2]. Problem-based learning further sharpens practical skills, while interdisciplinary training prepares students for collaborative research [11].

Our satisfaction survey results, showing broad acceptance with minimal dissatisfaction, reflect the appeal of student-centered methods like expert-led seminars and flipped classrooms, which we designed to enhance engagement and preparedness [8, 9]. This suggests the approach meets students’ career-oriented expectations.

These findings have implications for pharmacy education, addressing the gap between theory and practice [1, 4] and aligning with global efforts to modernize training [3]. The reform responds to industry needs for graduates skilled in drug development pipelines [8], potentially improving employability and research impact.

Limitations include the study’s single-institution focus and one-semester duration, which may limit generalizability. Variations in teaching expertise could introduce bias [14]. Future research should explore long-term effects on research productivity and clinical competence through multi-institutional or longitudinal studies, and assess the scalability of innovative methods in resource-limited settings [9].

Conclusion

In conclusion, we provide a reformed teaching approach, anchored in translational medicine, that offers a robust framework for advancing pharmacy graduate education. We effectively bridge theory and practice, elevate student performance across multiple domains, and earn strong learner endorsement. These findings advocate for wider adoption of such methodologies to prepare pharmacy students for the multifaceted challenges of modern drug development, contributing to the evolution of pharmaceutical education and practice.

Abbreviations

LBL

Literature-based Learning

PBL

Problem-based Learning

Author contributions

CL and HYM conceived and designed the study. ZSH, ZQ, SQY, and LYX contributed to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, including exam scores, proposal scores, and satisfaction survey results. ZSH, ZQ, NJN, and GWJ were involved in methodology, data curation, and statistical analysis. ZSH and ZQ wrote the original draft. CL revised subsequent drafts. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Zhejiang Province 14th Five-Year Plan Graduate Education Reform Project, 273.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was deemed exempt from formal ethics approval by the Ethics Committee of Wenzhou Medical University, as it involved educational data collected as part of routine academic activities with minimal risk to participants. All participants were informed of the study’s purpose and provided consent through their participation in the course activities, and their data were anonymized to ensure privacy. The research was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.