The state of health advocacy training in postgraduate medical education: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.033 | 0.149 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".