Laying the foundation: Teaching policy and advocacy to medical trainees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A novel and comprehensive two-year health policy curriculum was developed and implemented for family medicine residents at two University of Toronto-affiliated teaching sites. AIM: To evaluate the impact of the curriculum on residents' knowledge of health policy issues, and its usefulness to their learning. METHOD: The evaluation included a pre-post delivery assessment of residents' content-based knowledge of issues in the Canadian healthcare system. Residents were also asked to evaluate the content, process and usefulness of the health policy curriculum. RESULTS: At the end, more than two-thirds of residents had a better understanding of the Canadian healthcare system. The overall pre-post scores showed that residents retained content-based facts in some detail. However, more importantly, residents' positive evaluations of the curriculum indicated they were engaged, enthusiastic and recognized its importance for their learning. CONCLUSION: Despite residents' positive evaluations, questions remain as to how best to assess the success of health policy curricula. Moving beyond the popular pre-post test, less traditional approaches might complement standard program evaluation methods in future. As educators increasingly develop curricula aimed at non-biomedical expertise, we must consider how we can most meaningfully evaluate long-term impact on graduates' approach to clinical practice and their engagement in health system advocacy.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".