Health advocacy training in urology: a Canadian survey on
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Health advocacy is a well-defined core competency recognized by medical education and regulatory bodies. Advocacy is stressed as a critical component of a physician's function within his or her community and also of performance evaluation during residency training. We sought to assess urology residents' perceptions and attitudes toward health advocacy in residency training and practice. METHODS: We administered 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. It was designed to assess familiarity with the concept of health advocacy and with its application and importance to training and practice. We used descriptive and correlative statistics to analyze the responses, such as the availability of formal training and resident participation in activities involving health advocacy. RESULTS: There was a 93% response rate among the chief residents. Most residents were well aware of the role of the health advocate in urology, and a majority (68%) believed it is important in residency training and in the urologist's role in practice. This is in stark contrast to acknowledged participation and formal training in health advocacy. 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 used its principles in the clinic or community. Only 4%-7% of residents surveyed were aware of or had participated in local urological health advocacy groups. CONCLUSION: Despite knowledge about and acceptance of the importance of the health advocate role, there is a perceived lack of formal training and a dearth of participation during urological residency training.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 it