Cited by 38Innovations in Medical EducationEmpathy and Medical EducationHealth, Medicine and Society

Exploring patients’ and physicians’ perspectives about competent health advocacy

LaDonna, Kori A., Watling, Christopher J., Cristancho, Sayra M., Burm, Sarah·2021·Medical Education

Abstract

Introduction: Many residency programmes struggle to demonstrate how they prepare trainees to become competent health advocates. To meaningfully teach and assess it, we first need to understand what ‘competent’ health advocacy (HA) is and what competently enacting it requires. Attempts at clarifying HA have largely centred around the perspectives of consultant physicians and trainees. Without patients’ perspectives, we risk training learners to advocate in ways that may be misaligned with patients’ needs and goals. Therefore, the purpose of our research was to generate a multi‐perspective understanding about the meaning of competence for the HA role. Methods: We used constructivist grounded theory to explore patients’ and physicians’ perspectives about competent health advocacy. Data were collected using photo elicitation; patients (n = 10) and physicians (n = 14) took photographs depicting health advocacy that were used to inform semi‐structured interviews. Themes were identified using constant comparative analysis. Results: Physician participants associated HA with disruption or political activism, suggesting that competence hinged on medical and systems expertise, a conducive learning environment, and personal and professional characteristics including experience, status and political savvy. Patient participants, however, equated physician advocacy with patient centredness, perceiving that competent HAs are empathetic and attentive listeners. In contrast to patients, few physicians identified as advocates, raising questions about their ability to train or to thoughtfully assess learners’ abilities. Conclusion: Few participants perceived HA as a fundamental physician role—at least not as it is currently defined in curricular frameworks. Misperceptions that HA is primarily disruptive may be the root cause of the HA problem; solving it may rely on focusing training on bolstering skills like empathy and listening not typically associated with the HA role. Since there may be no competency where the patient voice is more critical, we need to explore opportunities for patients to facilitate learning for the HA role.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/medu.14408

Cites

7 of 7 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
LaDonna, K. A., Watling, C. J., Cristancho, S. M., & Burm, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Western University (CA)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
Corresponding author
LaDonna, Kori A.
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-12-09
Volume
55
Issue
4
Pages
486-495
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W3095307575
Cited by
38
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Education (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 › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
Keywords
health advocacy, physician advocacy, patient perspectives, physician attitudes, competence, residency training, patient-centered care, empathy, listening skills, competency assessment, patient voice
MeSH terms
Humans, Internship and Residency, Learning, Physician's Role, Physicians, Grounded Theory

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