Exploring patients’ and physicians’ perspectives about competent health advocacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Many residency programmes struggle to demonstrate how they prepare trainees to become competent health advocates. To meaningfully teach and assess it, we first need to understand what 'competent' health advocacy (HA) is and what competently enacting it requires. Attempts at clarifying HA have largely centred around the perspectives of consultant physicians and trainees. Without patients' perspectives, we risk training learners to advocate in ways that may be misaligned with patients' needs and goals. Therefore, the purpose of our research was to generate a multi-perspective understanding about the meaning of competence for the HA role. METHODS: We used constructivist grounded theory to explore patients' and physicians' perspectives about competent health advocacy. Data were collected using photo elicitation; patients (n = 10) and physicians (n = 14) took photographs depicting health advocacy that were used to inform semi-structured interviews. Themes were identified using constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: Physician participants associated HA with disruption or political activism, suggesting that competence hinged on medical and systems expertise, a conducive learning environment, and personal and professional characteristics including experience, status and political savvy. Patient participants, however, equated physician advocacy with patient centredness, perceiving that competent HAs are empathetic and attentive listeners. In contrast to patients, few physicians identified as advocates, raising questions about their ability to train or to thoughtfully assess learners' abilities. CONCLUSION: Few participants perceived HA as a fundamental physician role-at least not as it is currently defined in curricular frameworks. Misperceptions that HA is primarily disruptive may be the root cause of the HA problem; solving it may rely on focusing training on bolstering skills like empathy and listening not typically associated with the HA role. Since there may be no competency where the patient voice is more critical, we need to explore opportunities for patients to facilitate learning for the HA role.
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 | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".