Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
How Are We Teaching Advocacy? A National Survey of Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors.
Burnett, Joel R; De Lima, Bryanna; Wang, Emily S; McGarry, Kelly; Kim, Daniel I; Kisielewski, Michael; Manley, Kelsi; Desai, Sima S; Eckstrom, Elizabeth; Henry, Tracey L.
Afiliación
  • 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.
J Gen Intern Med ; 2024 May 06.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38710862
ABSTRACT

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.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Gen Intern Med Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA INTERNA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: J Gen Intern Med Asunto de la revista: MEDICINA INTERNA Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Estados Unidos