2. Use of a health advocacy essay to improve competence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We set out to determine if essay writing on health advocacy could improve scores on a Health Advocacy observed structured clinical exam (OSCE) station. A Health Advocacy station was used as one of ten stations at the annual resident OSCE in 2006. Subsequently, residents were instructed to write an essay regarding their actions as a health advocate, either in general or relating to a specific situation. For the 2007 OSCE, a different Health Advocacy station was used that was similar to the previous year in terms of the issues that residents needed to address and the scoring structure. The results on the OSCE stations between the two years were compared using Student’s T-test. Regression analysis was used to identify any predictors for a higher score. The number of residents taking the OSCE in 2006 and 2007 were 17 and 13, respectively. Nine residents completed the OSCE in both years. The number of PGY-1’s taking the OSCE for the first time in 2006 and 2007 were 8 and 4, respectively. Compliance with the essay writing was 100%. The mean score on the Health Advocacy station was significantly higher in 2007 compared to 2006 (53.0 ± 14.6 compared to 65.6 ± 10.0 vs. 53.0 ± 14.6; p=0.01). The mean score of PGY-1’s in 2007 tended to be higher than PGY-1’s in 2006 (67.5 ± 11.4 vs. 54.5 ± 12.3; p=0.11), suggesting the improvement was not due to having taken the OSCE previously. Regression analysis did not identify and other predictors of higher score on the OSCE station. These results suggest that essay writing by residents about actions they have taken as health advocates improves knowledge about the CanMEDS competency of Health Advocacy, as measured in an OSCE station. The non-randomized design of the study does not exclude the possibility of other factors influencing the improvement in score. Oandasan I, Barker K. Educating for Advocacy: Exploring the Source and Substance of Community-Responsive Physicians. Acad Med 2003; 78(1):S16-S19. Frank J, Langer B. Collaboration, Communication, Management, and Advocacy: Teaching surgeons new skills through the CanMEDS project. World J Surg 2003; 27:972-978. Verma S, Flynn L, Seguin R. Faculty’s and residents’ perceptions of teaching and evaluating the role of health advocate: A study at one Canadian university. Acad Med 2005; 80:103-108.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".