ArticleBMC medical education2024
Assessing resident experience of a new experiential learning health advocacy curriculum: a mixed methods study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Defining advocacy in public health: a scoping review to inform policy, training, and equity-oriented action.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth Advocacy is considered one of the most difficult skills to teach. Many medical learners feel ill-equipped in social competencies and identify it as a significant gap in their medical training. Experiential learning has recently been emerging as a more effective method to teach health advocacy. The Post Graduate Medical Education (PGME) Health Advocacy Day is a new experiential learning curriculum designed to teach important competencies of health advocacy and social accountability to post-graduate medical residents at the University of Ottawa in Ottawa, Canada. The objective of this mixed-methods study was to assess resident experiences.
methodsSecond-year trainees from all adult residency programs attended the Advocacy Day as part of a mandatory academic day. All participants completed a mandatory pre-and post-session quiz to assess knowledge of key topics before and after the course. We also distributed a voluntary survey to all participants and invited residents to participate in semi-structured interviews to provide feedback on the course. We used descriptive statistics to analyze quiz scores and survey results and conducted a paired t-test of pre and post-test quiz scores. We also performed a thematic analysis of qualitative feedback, specifically survey comments and semi-structured interviews.
resultsOne hundred and eighty-three residents participated in the Advocacy Day and 112 (61.2%) completed the post-course survey. Ten residents volunteered to be interviewed. Respondents were generally satisfied by the session and felt it was of good quality. Most residents felt the course enhanced their ability to advocate for individual patients or communities (N = 80; 71.5%) and understand patients and families' lived experience with illness (N = 87; 77.5%). Most residents also felt the course improved their knowledge of the impact of social determinants of health (N = 91; 81.2%) and increased their awareness of local resources that can support patients and their families (N = 88; 78.3%). Visiting community sites in-person and meeting persons with lived experiences were highlighted as the most valuable components of the course.
conclusionExperiential learning can be integrated within post-graduate medical curricula to teach health advocacy competencies. Future studies should examine the longitudinal impact of the curricula, to determine whether shifts in perspectives persist over time.
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.