Learner conceptions of health advocacy: ‘Going above & beyond’ or ‘kind of an expectation’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Health advocacy is a core component of physician competency frameworks. However, advocacy has lacked a clear definition and is understood and enacted variably across contexts. Due to their mobility across contexts, learners are uniquely positioned to provide insight into the tensions that have made this role so difficult to define, but that may be central to this role. The purpose of this study was to map the tensions and contours in conceptions of health advocacy among learners across a variety of learning contexts. METHODS: We used constructivist grounded theory and interviewed nine medical students and twenty residents in family, paediatric and internal medicine from across our university's distributed programmes. Data were analysed concurrently using open, focussed and theoretical coding to establish themes and relationships between themes. RESULTS: Learners understood health advocacy in two overlapping but distinct ways: as a set of behaviours and as a sense of 'going above and beyond', through additional effort, time or risk. These two conceptions overlapped and were often in tension. 'Going above and beyond' sometimes aligned with identifiable advocacy behaviours; at other times, 'going above and beyond' did not align with definitions of health advocacy in competency frameworks and aligned more closely with 'patient-centred care'. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that learners perceive that there are important elements of health advocacy that cannot be captured in universal behaviours that apply across contexts. 'Going above and beyond' describes a sense of grappling with sociocultural barriers to patient-centred care and striving towards better systems and better care for individuals. This more abstract and contextually bound notion of health advocacy may not lend itself easily to definition in competency frameworks and thus adds challenges to both teaching 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 | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".