How Are We Teaching Advocacy? A National Survey of Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors.

Autor: Burnett JR; Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) School of Medicine, Portland, OR, USA. joel.burnett.md@gmail.com., De Lima B; Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) School of Medicine, Portland, OR, USA., Wang ES; UT Health San Antonio Long School of Medicine, San Antonio, TX, USA., McGarry K; Alpert Medical School at Brown University, Providence, RI, USA., Kim DI; University of California, Riverside School of Medicine, Riverside, CA, USA., Kisielewski M; Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine, Alexandria, VA, USA., Manley K; Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) School of Medicine, Portland, OR, USA., Desai SS; Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) School of Medicine, Portland, OR, USA., Eckstrom E; Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) School of Medicine, Portland, OR, USA., Henry TL; Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of general internal medicine [J Gen Intern Med] 2024 May 06. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 May 06.
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-024-08753-3
Abstrakt: Background: Although internal medicine (IM) physicians accept public advocacy as a professional responsibility, there is little evidence that IM training programs teach advocacy skills. The prevalence and characteristics of public advocacy curricula in US IM residency programs are unknown.
Objectives: To describe the prevalence and characteristics of curricula in US IM residencies addressing public advocacy for communities and populations; to describe barriers to the provision of such curricula.
Design: Nationally representative, web-based, cross-sectional survey of IM residency program directors with membership in an academic professional association.
Participants: A total of 276 IM residency program directors (61%) responded between August and December 2022.
Main Measurements: Percentage of US IM residency programs that teach advocacy curricula; characteristics of advocacy curricula; perceptions of barriers to teaching advocacy.
Key Results: More than half of respondents reported that their programs offer no advocacy curricula (148/276, 53.6%). Ninety-five programs (95/276, 34.4%) reported required advocacy curricula; 33 programs (33/276, 12%) provided curricula as elective only. The content, structure, and teaching methods of advocacy curricula in IM programs were heterogeneous; experiential learning in required curricula was low (23/95, 24.2%) compared to that in elective curricula (51/65, 78.5%). The most highly reported barriers to implementing or improving upon advocacy curricula (multiple responses allowed) were lack of faculty expertise in advocacy (200/276, 72%), inadequate faculty time (190/276, 69%), and limited curricular flexibility (148/276, 54%).
Conclusion: Over half of US IM residency programs offer no formal training in public advocacy skills and many reported lack of faculty expertise in public advocacy as a barrier. These findings suggest many IM residents are not taught how to advocate for communities and populations. Further, less than one-quarter of required curricula in public advocacy involves experiential learning.
(© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: