50. Health advocacy in surgical training: A Canadian survey on attitudes and experience in urology residency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We sought to assess surgical residents’ perceptions and attitudes toward health advocacy in residency training and practice by administering an anonymous, cross-sectional, self-report questionnaire to all final year urology residents in Canadian training programs. The survey was closed-ended and employed a 5-point Likert scale designed to assess familiarity with the concept of health advocacy and its application and importance to training and practice. Descriptive and correlative statistics were used to analyze the responses. There was a 93% response rate from the chief residents. Most residents were well aware of the role of health advocate in urology, and a majority (68%) believe it to be important in residency training and in the urologist’s role in practice. However, a minority (7-25%) agreed that formal training or mentorship in health advocacy was available at their institution, and only 21-39% felt that they had employed its principles in the clinic or community. Only 4-7% or residents surveyed were aware of or had participated in local urologic health advocacy groups. Despite knowledge and acceptance of the importance of the health advocate role, there is a perceived lack of formal training and a dearth of participation during urologic residency training. Verma S, Flynn L, Seguin R. Faculty’s and Residents’ Perceptions of Teaching and Evaluating the Role of Health Advocate. Acad Med. 2005; 80:103–108. Oandasen I. Health advocacy: bringing clarity to educators through the voices of physician health advocates. Acad Med. 2005 (Oct); 80(10 Suppl):S38-41. Frank JR. (Ed). The CanMEDS 2005 physician competency framework. Better standards. Better physicians. Better care. Ottawa: The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, 2005.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".