Health advocacy: A gulf between instruction and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Systematic ways to teach health advocacy, an educational outcome for pharmacy graduates, is lacking. We developed a workshop to facilitate understanding and application of a novel structured framework for health advocacy and explored how pharmacy students enacted opportunities for health advocacy during subsequent outpatient experiential training. EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING: A two-hour workshop was introduced for year 2 students in 2019. Its content was organized around a health advocacy framework. With patient and faculty facilitators, students worked through examples characterized into the framework's four quadrants: 1) shared advocacy "with patients" at the individual- or 2) systems-level and 3) directed advocacy "for patients" at the individual-or 4) systems-level. We then conducted a longitudinal diary study asking pharmacy students (N = 23) to reflect on opportunities to practice health advocacy skills in community pharmacy practice. A systematic, multi-coder reflexive thematic analysis of diary entries was employed. FINDINGS: Pharmacy students did not express a fulsome view of patient health advocacy and mischaracterized self-reported practice examples into inappropriate categories of the health advocacy framework. Most overemphasized usual pharmacist care as acts of health advocacy. No systems-level activities were undertaken, although isolated episodes of shared advocacy with patients were identified. SUMMARY: Lasting impacts of a health advocacy workshop in our pharmacy curriculum were not widely apparent. While longer training periods in community pharmacy practice may yield more opportunities to develop and enact this role, gaps in student conceptualization of health advocacy and inabilities to practically observe and exercise system-level advocacy are ultimately problematic for patient care.
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 | 0.062 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".