Exploring patients’ and physicians’ perspectives about competent health advocacy
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Advocacy is difficult to teach and assess.
“Advocacy is also difficult to teach and assess30.”
From Advocacy Curricula in Graduate Medical Education: an Updated Systematic Review from 2017 to 2022 (2023) · cites this paper as [30]
Cites
The Significance of Saturation
Morse, J. M. (1995) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/104973239500500201 · Cited by 2,663 · see citing works
Perspective: Physician Advocacy: What Is It and How Do We Do It?
Earnest, M. A., Wong, S. L., & Federico, S. G. (2010) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181c40d40 · Cited by 301 · see citing works
Patient and public involvement in the design of clinical trials: An overview of systematic reviews
Price, A., Albarqouni, L., Kirkpatrick, J., Clarke, M., Liew, S. M., Roberts, N., & Burls, A. (2018) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.12805 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
Verma, S., Flynn, L., & Seguin, R. (2005) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200501000-00024 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Evaluation of resident attitudes and self-reported competencies in health advocacy
Stafford, S., Sedlak, T., Fok, M. C., & Wong, R. Y. (2010) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/1472-6920-10-82 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
A Systematic Review of Advocacy Curricula in Graduate Medical Education
Howell, B. A., Kristal, R. B., Whitmire, L. R., Gentry, M., Rabin, T. L., & Rosenbaum, J. (2019) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-019-05184-3 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
The state of health advocacy training in postgraduate medical education: a scoping review
McDonald, M., Lavelle, C., Wen, M., Sherbino, J., & Hulme, J. (2019) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/medu.13929 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Advocacy Curricula in Graduate Medical Education: an Updated Systematic Review from 2017 to 2022
Agrawal, N., Lucier, J., Ogawa, R., & Arons, A. (2023) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-023-08244-x · Cited by 34 · see citing works
- 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