Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Health Advocacy and Training Perceptions: a Comparison of Medical Student Opinions

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The American Medical Association considers health advocacy to be a core aspect of a physician’s responsibility, which has sparked medical schools to institutionalize training. However, there is little information regarding student perspectives on advocacy education.

Purpose

To evaluate medical student opinions on advocacy education and to determine similarities and differences across classes.

Methods

In this qualitative study, four focus groups were conducted with five to eight students from each medical school class. Students were randomly selected from rosters and received an email to participate. Sessions were audiotaped and transcribed, and demographic data was obtained. Investigators reviewed transcripts independently and identified important items in each transcript then consolidated common themes into groups. These themes were integrated into concept map representations.

Results

Of those contacted, 25 (16%) students chose to participate in focus group sessions. All participants who responded to questionnaires (n = 24) identified advocacy in medicine as very important. Definitions of advocacy varied among students and classes. Common themes in all focus groups included feeling overwhelmed by advocacy due to lack of time, lack of perceived prioritization in medical education, feelings of imposter syndrome, and inability to align individual views with healthcare systems. Another common theme was frustration that students learned of advocacy through didactic sessions rather than engagement in advocacy work.

Conclusions

All participating students identified advocacy as an important aspect of medicine, yet students felt inadequately prepared to participate in advocacy work. This reveals an opportunity to improve upon the formal education needed to engage in advocacy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Rana Aliani, upon reasonable request.

Code Availability

No software was used in the iterative open coding process.

References

  1. American Medical Association. Declaration of professional responsibility. American Medical Association Web site. https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/public-health/ama-declaration-professional-responsibility. Accessed 28 May 2020.

  2. Luft L. The essential role of physician as advocate: how and why we pass it on. Can Med Educ J. 2017;8(3):e109–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Belkowitz J, Sanders L, Zhang C, Agarwal G, Lichtstein D, Mechaber A, Chung E. Teaching health advocacy to medical students: a comparison study. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2014;20(6):E10–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Croft D, Jay S, Meslin E, Gaffney M, Odell J. Perspective: is it time for advocacy training in medical education? Acad Med. 2012;87(9):1165–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Douglas A, Mak D, Bulsara C, Macey D, Samarawickrema I. The teaching and learning of health advocacy in an Australian medical school. Int J Med Educ. 2018;9:26–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bhate TD, Loh LC. Building a generation of physician advocates: the case for including mandatory training in advocacy in Canadian medical school curricula. Acad Med. 2015;90(12):1602–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL, Elliott V, Fernandez M, O’Neal L, McLeod L, Delacqua G, Delacqua F, Kirby J, Duda SN. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software partners. J Biomed Inform. 2019;95:103208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Charmaz, K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. 2006.

  10. Desai A, Hegde A, Das D. Change in reporting of USMLE Step 1 scores and potential implications for international medical graduates. JAMA. 2020;323(20):2015–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chaudhry HJ, Katsufrakis PJ, Tallia AF. The USMLE Step 1 decision: an opportunity for medical education and training. JAMA. 2020;323(20):2017–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Crane MA, Chang HA, Azamfirei R. Medical education takes a step in the right direction: where does that leave students? JAMA. 2020;323(20):2013–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rana Aliani.

Ethics declarations

Ethics Approval

The Institutional Review Board at the University of Kansas Medical Center confirmed no approval was required for this study.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study. All students who participated in this study signaled their verbal agreement to participate prior to the start of each focus group. Participation was voluntary.

Consent for Publication

Participants provided consent for publication during the verbal consent process.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aliani, R., Dreiling, A., Sanchez, J. et al. Health Advocacy and Training Perceptions: a Comparison of Medical Student Opinions. Med.Sci.Educ. 31, 1951–1956 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01394-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-021-01394-9

Keywords

Navigation