CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45Child and Adolescent HealthInnovations in Medical EducationHealth and Medical Education

Child Advocacy Training: Curriculum Outcomes and Resident Satisfaction

Chamberlain, Lisa J., Sanders, Lee M., Takayama, John I.·2005·Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine
DOI 10.1001/archpedi.159.9.842
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many health problems affecting children today are based in the community and cannot be easily addressed in the office setting. Child advocacy is an effective approach for pediatricians to take. OBJECTIVE: To describe pediatric residents' choices of advocacy topics and interventions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. METHODS: Residents from 3 pediatric training programs participated in the Child Advocacy Curriculum, which featured standardized workshops and the development of individual advocacy projects. To evaluate the curriculum, project descriptions and material products were analyzed to determine individual advocacy topics, topic themes, and targets of project interventions. Differences among programs were assessed. Residents also completed an anonymous questionnaire assessing their experience with the Child Advocacy Curriculum. RESULTS: Residents demonstrated a wide range of interests in selecting advocacy topics: 99 residents chose 38 different topics. The most common topic was obesity (13 residents) followed by health care access (9), teen pregnancy prevention (6), and oral health (5). Themes included health promotion and disease prevention, injury prevention, health care access, children with special health care needs, child development, at-risk populations, and the impact of media on child health. The project interventions targeted the local community most frequently (37%), followed by resident education (27%), hospital systems (21%), and public and health policy (15%). The vast majority of participating residents reported a positive experience with the Child Advocacy Curriculum. CONCLUSIONS: The wide range of topics and settings in which residents developed projects illustrates residents' extensive interests and ingenuity in applying needed advocacy solutions to complex child health issues.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archpedi.159.9.842

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Of the three articles describing curricula at multiple institutions, one described the AAP Community Pediatrics Training Initiative not tied to a residency program, one described multiple curricula from the California Collaborative in Pediatrics and Legislative Advocacy, and one described a curriculum offered to all Canadian OB/Gyn programs.

    “Of these three, one described a curriculum developed by the American Academy of Pediatrics ' Community Pediatrics Training Initiative (CPTI) which was not tied to a residency program, 36 one described multiple curricula developed as part of the California Collaborative in Pediatrics and Legislative Advocacy, 28 and one described a curriculum offered to all Canadian OB/Gyn programs. 50”

    From A Systematic Review of Advocacy Curricula in Graduate Medical Education (2019) · cites this paper as [28]

  • The majority of included pediatric curricula were published after 2001 and directly referenced the inclusion of child advocacy in the requirements as part of the rationale for their creation.

    “the majority were published after and directly referenced the inclusion of child advocacy in the requirements as part of the rationale for their creation.”

    From A Systematic Review of Advocacy Curricula in Graduate Medical Education (2019) · cites this paper as [28]

  • The American Academy of Pediatrics directly supported residency programs through the Dyson Community Pediatrics Training Initiative (CPTI) and provided other institutional support around the development and implementation of child advocacy curricula.

    “the American Academy of Pediatrics directly supported residency programs through the Dyson Community Pediatrics Training Initiative (CPTI) 13, 28, 29, 36, 58 and provided other institutional support around the development and implementation of child advocacy curricula.”

    From A Systematic Review of Advocacy Curricula in Graduate Medical Education (2019) · cites this paper as [28]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Chamberlain, L. J., Sanders, L. M., & Takayama, J. I.
Affiliations
Stanford Medicine (US)
ORCID
Venue
Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2005-09-01
Volume
159
Issue
9
Pages
842
ISSN
1072-4710 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/archpedi.159.9.842
OpenAlex
W2137830596
Cited by
45
References
39
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Child and Adolescent Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
Keywords
child advocacy, pediatric residents, community health promotion, childhood obesity, health care access, adolescent pregnancy prevention, oral health, children with special health care needs, injury prevention, health policy, resident education
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, California, Child, Child Advocacy, Child Welfare, Community Medicine, Cooperative Behavior, Cross-Sectional Studies, Curriculum, Female, Florida, Health Promotion, Humans, Internship and Residency, Male, Pediatrics, Personal Satisfaction, Program Evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review