ArticleCanadian medical education journal2025
Exploring the perspectives of new-in-practice specialists about the Health Advocate role: "I didn't even know where to start".
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Ethical Principlism Informs Health Care Access Advocacy.The Permanente journal · 2026Article
- Facing hard truths: Medical education's reckoning with settler colonialism in an era of reconciliation.Medical education · 2026Article
- Against research: a case for the scholarship of application in Medical Education.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
- Fostering advocacy of physician health and accessibility from training into practice.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
- Embracing the next frontier in assessment.Canadian medical education journal · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Current approaches to health advocate (HA) training leave many physicians feeling ill-equipped to advocate effectively. Likewise, faculty perceive the HA role as challenging to teach, role model, evaluate and assess. Progress on improving HA training is further stalled by debate over the role's importance and whether it should be considered intrinsic to medical practice. Recent graduates are well-positioned to comment on how these challenges affect HA training and preparation for practice. Therefore, our purpose was to explore the perspectives of new-in-practice physicians who are keen to be effective advocates. Methods: Ten early-career physicians participated in semi-structured interviews exploring their perceived competence and motivation to engage in health advocacy. Constructivist grounded theory informed the iterative data collection and analysis process. Results: Participants wished they knew during training how much they would use advocacy in practice. While training imparted adequate patient-level advocacy skills, participants felt underprepared to enact system-level advocacy-which they conceptualized as a wide-range of activities including political advocacy. In turn, participants grappled with lack of preparation, waning motivation, feelings of futility, lack of value for advocacy and need for self-preservation. For these reasons, they questioned whether system-level advocacy should be expected of all physicians. Conclusions: Although training may adequately prepare physicians for patient-level advocacy, system-level advocacy training remains insufficient. While patient-level advocacy is integral to good care, whether system-level advocacy should be a universal expectation deserves closer consideration. Perhaps system-level health advocacy may be better conceptualized as a specialized role requiring additional training. Regardless, physician advocates' efforts need to be valued for their contributions.
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.