An advocacy experience for medical students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Promoting advocacy and social responsibility is a requirement of medical education. This article describes a brief clinical educational initiative to foster advocacy amongst medical students, and explores student attitudes towards homelessness. METHODS: A compulsory clinical experience in homeless health was integrated into the family medicine clerkship curriculum for a subset (n = 30) of all third-year medical students (n = 254) at the University of Toronto in 2012/13. This programme consisted of four half-days, in which students provided primary care within a shelter setting under supervision from a physician. The experience was paired with a supportive and reflective debriefing session, and feedback was collected from participating students. Surveys on attitudes towards homelessness were also administered to all third-year students before and after their rotation in family medicine. Students provided primary care within a shelter setting under supervision from a physician RESULTS: Student feedback indicated that the programme was very well received; however, some students described feeling overwhelmed at times when working with this vulnerable population. On attitude surveys, female sex, age, earlier month of survey administration and interest in certain specialties was associated with more positive attitudes towards homelessness. DISCUSSION: A brief clinical experience outside of a traditional health care setting in which students are exposed to the day-to-day reality of advocating for vulnerable populations can meaningfully contribute to a comprehensive advocacy curriculum. We suggest this programme could be feasibility adapted to other settings and populations. The importance of supportive and reflective mentorship and diverse clinical settings are highlighted.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".