MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969819673 · doi:10.1111/medu.13929

The state of health advocacy training in postgraduate medical education: a scoping review

2019· review· en· W2969819673 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicChild and Adolescent Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMedical educationStakeholderCompetence (human resources)Thematic analysisGrey literatureContext (archaeology)Psychological interventionMEDLINEGovernment (linguistics)MedicinePolitical sciencePublic relationsNursingPsychologyQualitative researchSociologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Health advocacy is an essential component of postgraduate medical education, and is part of many physician competency frameworks such as the Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists (CanMEDS) roles. There is little consensus about how advocacy should be taught and assessed in the postgraduate context. There are no consolidated guides to assist in the design and implementation of postgraduate health advocacy curricula. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review aims to identify and analyse existing literature pertaining to health advocacy education and assessment in postgraduate medicine. We specifically sought to summarise themes from the literature that may be useful to medical educators to inform further health advocacy curriculum interventions. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and ERIC were searched using MeSH (medical student headings) and non-MeSH search terms. Additional articles were found using forward snowballing. The grey literature search included Google and relevant stakeholder websites, regulatory bodies, physician associations, government agencies and academic institutions. We followed a stepwise scoping review methodology, followed by thematic analysis using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Of the 123 documents reviewed in full, five major themes emerged: (i) conceptions of health advocacy have evolved towards advocating with rather than for patients, communities and populations; (ii) longitudinal curricula were less common but appeared the most promising, often linked to scholarly or policy objectives; (iii) hands-on, immersive opportunities build competence and confidence; (iv) community-identified needs and partnerships are increasingly considered in designing curriculum, and (v) resident-led and motivated programmes appear to engage residents and allow for achievement of stated outcomes. There remain significant challenges to assessment of health advocacy competencies, and assessment tools for macro-level health advocacy were notably absent. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable heterogeneity in the way health advocacy is taught, assessed and incorporated into postgraduate curricula across programmes and disciplines. We consolidated recommendations from the literature to inform further health advocacy curriculum design, implementation and assessment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.161
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.409 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it