Cited by 52Innovations in Medical EducationHealth and Medical EducationEmpathy and Medical Education

Fundamental components of a curriculum for residents in health advocacy

Open access
Flynn, Leslie, Verma, Sarita·2008·Medical Teacher

Abstract

PURPOSE: To develop components of a curriculum for teaching and evaluating Residents as health advocates. METHOD: Modeled on the Delphi technique, the first step involved a multidisciplinary panel of 10 Queen's University health care providers with expertize in education and patient advocacy. In the context of four Advocacy questions: What is it?, Who does it?, How to teach it?, and How to evaluate it?, they discussed a curriculum framework including graded education, scholarly activity, role modeling, and case examples. In the second step, 24 faculty experts addressed two goals: (1) to identify attributes discussed by the expert panel in step 1 and corresponding measurable behaviours and (2) to refine the curriculum framework proposed in step 1 with emphasis on content and evaluation. RESULTS: Six attributes of a health advocate were identified; knowledgeable, altruistic, honest, assertive, resourceful, and up-to date. Behaviours that reflect these attributes were identified as desirable or undesirable and means of teaching were matched to the attributes. For most residents, skills would be developed in a graded fashion, progressing from advocating for the individual to society as a whole. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a general framework from which specialty-specific curriculums for training health advocates can be developed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01421590802139757

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Flynn, L., & Verma, S.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Flynn, Leslie
Venue
Medical Teacher
Published
2008-01
Volume
30
Issue
7
Pages
e178-e183
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
OpenAlex
W2130384139
Cited by
52
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health and Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
Keywords
health advocacy, patient advocacy, medical residents, curriculum development, Delphi method, resident education, advocacy skills, role modeling, curriculum evaluation, health professions education
MeSH terms
Consumer Advocacy, Curriculum, Delphi Technique, Educational Measurement, Humans, Internship and Residency, Program Development

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