ArticleCJEM2026
Assessing health advocacy competencies through a novel simulation OSCE-based educational framework.
Article in CJEM, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Health advocacy remains one of the least explicitly assessed CanMEDS roles in Emergency Medicine. Objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) simulation is used to assess performance in real time but has not previously incorporated social determinants of health. We developed and piloted a simulation-based OSCE, embedding advocacy within acute clinical care and introduced novel assessment tools, completed by both examiners and standardized patients. Here we report the feasibility and acceptability of this OSCE and assessment tools. Twenty-two residents completed the advocacy and standard cases; 18 (82%) completed exit surveys. Most participants did not know advocacy would be assessed. Participants described the case as realistic and acceptable with minor suggestions for refinement. Assessors found the assessments intuitive to use and feasible to implement. This pilot suggests structured assessment of patient-level advocacy from both physician and patient perspectives can be feasibly integrated into simulation assessment without disrupting usual performance evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42848132What 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.