ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2025
How Are We Teaching Advocacy? A National Survey of Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Curricular advances to develop medical students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes in health advocacy.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Moving Medical Education Along the Arc of Social Justice.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough internal medicine (IM) physicians accept public advocacy as a professional responsibility, there is little evidence that IM training programs teach advocacy skills. The prevalence and characteristics of public advocacy curricula in US IM residency programs are unknown.
objectivesTo describe the prevalence and characteristics of curricula in US IM residencies addressing public advocacy for communities and populations; to describe barriers to the provision of such curricula.
designNationally representative, web-based, cross-sectional survey of IM residency program directors with membership in an academic professional association.
participantsA total of 276 IM residency program directors (61%) responded between August and December 2022. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Percentage of US IM residency programs that teach advocacy curricula; characteristics of advocacy curricula; perceptions of barriers to teaching advocacy. KEY
resultsMore than half of respondents reported that their programs offer no advocacy curricula (148/276, 53.6%). Ninety-five programs (95/276, 34.4%) reported required advocacy curricula; 33 programs (33/276, 12%) provided curricula as elective only. The content, structure, and teaching methods of advocacy curricula in IM programs were heterogeneous; experiential learning in required curricula was low (23/95, 24.2%) compared to that in elective curricula (51/65, 78.5%). The most highly reported barriers to implementing or improving upon advocacy curricula (multiple responses allowed) were lack of faculty expertise in advocacy (200/276, 72%), inadequate faculty time (190/276, 69%), and limited curricular flexibility (148/276, 54%).
conclusionOver half of US IM residency programs offer no formal training in public advocacy skills and many reported lack of faculty expertise in public advocacy as a barrier. These findings suggest many IM residents are not taught how to advocate for communities and populations. Further, less than one-quarter of required curricula in public advocacy involves experiential learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.