MP26: The simulated newsroom: a novel educational intervention to teach advocacy skills to resident physicians
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Innovation Concept: Advocacy is a key competency of Canadian residency education, yet physicians seldom engage with supra-clinical advocacy efforts upon completion of training. Emergency medicine (EM) residency training may not equip graduates with the knowledge and skills required to engage as physician-advocates in their communities. Focused writing workshops may increase the confidence and ability of EM trainees to engage as health advocates. Methods: Following a literature review, simulated newsroom workshops were developed by two EM physicians with graduate-level journalism training and workplace experience. Participants were invited to participate in an audio-recorded focus-group and to submit their opinion editorial. Twelve participants registered for the workshops and six attended both sessions and the focus group; four submitted written work. Focus group transcripts and written work were qualitatively analysed to understand acceptability, feasibility, and how students might engage as future health advocates. Curriculum, Tool, or Material: The simulated newsroom consisted of participants acting as journalists and the expert facilitator acting as a news editor. The first workshop provided a framework for news judgement in a didactic session, followed by interactive exercises including: prioritization of news pitches, a simulated editorial meeting, and analysis of published news articles. The participants then drafted their own pitches for in situ feedback from peers and facilitators. Two-weeks later, participants brought their completed articles for peer and expert review before submitting their final article. Conclusion: The innovation bolstered resident physician confidence in advocacy through the popular press, and provided demonstrable skills in opinion writing. Participants felt challenged to develop compelling narratives and differentiate this form of advocacy communication from academic writing or prior media training. Participants valued the workshop as a voluntary component of residency education led by peer experts. Through their writing, residents demonstrated an understanding of structural factors that impact patient health and health systems. Future engagement as physician advocates may be tempered by fears of professional repercussions for public engagement; the impact of physician advocacy on population health outcomes is not yet known.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,021 | 0,002 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».