Not just ‘for’ but ‘with’: health advocacy as a partnership process
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CONTEXT: Health advocacy is often framed as an activity that physicians do for others. A physician uses her expertise to identify and address the health needs of patients or communities on their behalves. As part of a larger study, we uncovered data to suggest that effective health advocates work not just for but often with others to understand and address their health needs. OBJECTIVES: This paper explores and elaborates the important distinction between advocating with and for others. METHODS: We interviewed 10 physicians, identified by others as successful health advocates, about their advocacy activities. Informed by constructivist grounded theory, we gathered and evaluated data iteratively, continually revising the interview outline and concurrently refining our evolving themes. Once it had stabilised, the coding scheme was applied to the full set of transcripts. RESULTS: Health advocacy was framed by participants as an activity that was more often done with others, than for others. This manifested in two ways: (i) joining other voices: rather than always feeling a need to plan and act alone, our participants often described making efforts to find and join existing initiatives and to work collaboratively, and (ii) amplifying other voices: rather than authoritatively determining needs and enacting solutions on behalf of others, our participants often described making efforts to empower others to find their own voices, thereby fostering autonomy rather than reliance. Participants described factors and mechanisms that enabled them to approach advocacy in this manner. CONCLUSIONS: Successful health advocates often enact health advocacy with others, rather than exclusively for them. This partnership-based facilitative approach enables them to better appreciate the needs of those requiring support, and to ask: 'How can I help?' If this approach were more effectively reflected in formal constructions of the process, health advocacy might not only be practised more effectively, but might also be perceived as more achievable by trainees and physicians.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».