Faculty??s and Residents??? Perceptions of Teaching and Evaluating the Role of Health Advocate: A Study at One Canadian University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the views of faculty and residents about teaching and evaluating health advocacy, one of the more difficult CanMEDS roles to integrate into postgraduate medical education. METHOD: In 2002, two focus groups of faculty and two of residents at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, were asked standardized questions to elicit their answers to what was a health care advocate as understood and reported by teachers and residents, and what were the reported barriers and enhancers to teaching and evaluating the role of residents as health care advocates. RESULTS: The study found that faculty and residents knew little about how to teach and evaluate the role of the health advocate. There was consensus between the two types of groups with congruity between residents and faculty about the key issues. The one exception to this was the disconnect between the faculty members' belief that advocacy was an aspect of their daily work and the residents' apparent lack of awareness of this. The majority of participants were not familiar with the Royal College's description of the role of health advocate and were very keen to receive further guidance on teaching tools and methods of evaluation. CONCLUSION: The authors' hypothesis was that little is known about how to teach and evaluate the role of the health advocate. The results confirmed this and identified important areas upon which to build an educational framework. The definition of the health advocate and the expectations require clarity and direction. Academic programs would benefit from clear objectives.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".