Shifts in the interpretation of health advocacy: a textual analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Health advocacy is widely accepted as a key element of competency-based education. We examined shifts in the language and description of the role of the health advocate and what these reveal about its interpretation and enactment within the context of medical education. METHODS: We conducted a textual analysis of three key documents that provide sequential depictions of the role of the health advocate in medical education frameworks: Educating Future Physicians for Ontario (1993), CanMEDS 2000 and CanMEDS 2005. We used a series of questions to examine shifts in the emphasis, focus and application of the role between documents. Theoretically, we drew upon Carlisle's conceptual framework to identify different approaches to advocacy. RESULTS: We identified three major shifts in the language associated with the role of health advocate across our textual documents. Firstly, activities and behaviours that were initially positioned as being the responsibility of the profession as a whole came to be described instead as competencies required of every physician. Secondly, the initial focus on health advocacy as representing collective action towards public policy and systems-level change was altered to a primary focus on individual patients and doctors. Thirdly, we observed a progression away from descriptions of concrete actions and behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: This study uncovers shifts in the language of physician advocacy that affect the discourse of health advocacy and expectations placed on physicians and trainees. Being explicit about expectations of the medical profession and individual practitioners may require renewed examination of societal needs. Although this study uses the CanMEDS role of Health Advocate as a specific example, it has implications for the conceptualisation of health advocacy in medicine and medical education globally.
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 | 0.015 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".