Understanding health advocacy in family medicine and psychiatry curricula and practice: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We explored understanding and experiences of health advocacy among psychiatry and family medicine residents and faculty and the implications for clinical care and teaching through the lens of relationship-centred care. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted in the psychiatry and family medicine departments at a large urban university. We interviewed 19 faculty members and conducted two focus groups with 18 residents. Semi-structured questions explored the relational meaning of health advocacy, how residents and faculty learned about the role and ethical considerations involved in incorporating advocacy work into clinical practice within a relationship-centred care framework. RESULTS: Four themes emerged from the interviews and focus groups: 1) health advocacy as an extension of the relationship to self; 2) health advocacy and professional boundaries in the physician-patient relationship; 3) health advocacy within a team-based approach; and 4) health advocacy and the physician-community/organization relationship. Participants described implications for practice of the challenges of health advocacy, including perceived institutional risks, professional boundaries and the appropriation of patient voice. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides insights into the relational complexities of the health advocate role in residency curriculum and clinical practice. All participants described health advocacy as a broad spectrum of actions that are guided by relationships among patients, health care professionals and communities. Our analysis revealed that some challenges that participants identified with a health advocacy role could be addressed by anchoring the role within a specific theoretical framework. This would better enable us to create a culture of advocacy in the training and development of physicians.
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 | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".