Assessing resident experience of a new experiential learning health advocacy curriculum: a mixed methods study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Health Advocacy is considered one of the most difficult skills to teach. Many medical learners feel ill-equipped in social competencies and identify it as a significant gap in their medical training. Experiential learning has recently been emerging as a more effective method to teach health advocacy. The Post Graduate Medical Education (PGME) Health Advocacy Day is a new experiential learning curriculum designed to teach important competencies of health advocacy and social accountability to post-graduate medical residents at the University of Ottawa in Ottawa, Canada. The objective of this mixed-methods study was to assess resident experiences. METHODS: Second-year trainees from all adult residency programs attended the Advocacy Day as part of a mandatory academic day. All participants completed a mandatory pre-and post-session quiz to assess knowledge of key topics before and after the course. We also distributed a voluntary survey to all participants and invited residents to participate in semi-structured interviews to provide feedback on the course. We used descriptive statistics to analyze quiz scores and survey results and conducted a paired t-test of pre and post-test quiz scores. We also performed a thematic analysis of qualitative feedback, specifically survey comments and semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-three residents participated in the Advocacy Day and 112 (61.2%) completed the post-course survey. Ten residents volunteered to be interviewed. Respondents were generally satisfied by the session and felt it was of good quality. Most residents felt the course enhanced their ability to advocate for individual patients or communities (N = 80; 71.5%) and understand patients and families' lived experience with illness (N = 87; 77.5%). Most residents also felt the course improved their knowledge of the impact of social determinants of health (N = 91; 81.2%) and increased their awareness of local resources that can support patients and their families (N = 88; 78.3%). Visiting community sites in-person and meeting persons with lived experiences were highlighted as the most valuable components of the course. CONCLUSION: Experiential learning can be integrated within post-graduate medical curricula to teach health advocacy competencies. Future studies should examine the longitudinal impact of the curricula, to determine whether shifts in perspectives persist over time.
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 | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».