R1 (Resident Advocacy Project) Flexible and Enhanced Learning with our RICHER Partners: Reciprocal Partnerships between Medical Students and Equity-Deserving Communities to Promote Vaccine Access and Teach Health Advocacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale and Objectives The University of British Columbia provides medical students in years 1, 2, and 4 with protected time to explore the CanMEDs competencies in student-directed service, education, and research through the Flexible and Enhanced Learning (FLEX) program. Six FLEX students in the past three years have engaged in reciprocal partnerships with the Responsive, Intersectoral Community Child Health Education and Research group (RICHER). RICHER is a consortium of interdisciplinary healthcare providers, resource centres, and community members working across sectors and systems who serve equity-deserving children, youth, and families in Vancouver’s inner-city. Students develop leadership, health advocacy, and collaboration competencies through mentorship and co-learning with the RICHER team and community partners. For example, students have partnered to promote and amplify vaccine equity, knowledge of children’s and youth’s rights, food security, and social-emotional learning. Project Description For each FLEX project, community members identify local priorities. They conduct needs assessments and environmental scans. Students complete project proposals, ethics board and grant applications, and elicit iterative community feedback. Students collect data and communicate findings to stakeholders, including community members and RICHER clinicians. RICHER further amplifies community voices by sharing FLEX project results with local and provincial decision-makers, resulting in policy change and resource mobilization. Projects are evaluated qualitatively by stakeholders. For example, during the COVID-19 lockdown, many inner-city families faced barriers accessing COVID vaccines. The Downtown Eastside neighbourhood had some of the lowest vaccination rates in the province. Outcomes FLEX students surveyed 122 community members and found that 89 (73%) community members experienced a significant barrier to accessing COVID vaccines, such as: no access to technology or ID required to register or book an appointment, no access to transportation to a vaccine clinic, or trauma associated with accessing healthcare or injections. The RICHER team was able to respond to these findings by authoring a letter to the local health authority, who mobilized a pop-up vaccine clinic at an accessible, local community centre using the principles of brokered trust. Discussion/Future Directions This vaccine equity project has set a precedence for accessible care and created a model for future vaccine clinics to provide protection against viruses like influenza. FLEX students and hospital staff learned from Indigenous Elders and community members how to use the medicine wheel in the context of wholistic healthcare. As health advocates, FLEX students learned to ask, “who are we not seeing and why?” and learned how to write motivational letters to changemakers.
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 | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.007 |
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".