Health advocacy training in undergraduate medical education over 20 years: A scoping review.

IF 4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Medical Teacher Pub Date : 2026-09-01 Epub Date: 2026-04-13 DOI:10.1080/0142159X.2026.2649963
Kalli Spencer, Kerry Uebel, Devi Mohan, Nalini Pather
{"title":"Health advocacy training in undergraduate medical education over 20 years: A scoping review.","authors":"Kalli Spencer, Kerry Uebel, Devi Mohan, Nalini Pather","doi":"10.1080/0142159X.2026.2649963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Health advocacy is recognised globally as a core physician competency yet remains one of the most challenging domains to teach, assess, and evaluate. Despite regulatory emphasis, integration into undergraduate medical curricula is inconsistent and poorly aligned with professional frameworks. This review maps and critically analyses how health advocacy has been conceptualised, implemented, and assessed in undergraduate medical education over the past two decades.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines was undertaken, incorporating critical interpretive synthesis to move beyond description towards theory development. Thirty-two studies (2003-2025) were identified from EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Carlisle's advocacy domains, CanMEDS competencies, Van Melle's implementation components, and Kirkpatrick's evaluation levels were applied as complementary lenses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Advocacy education was most frequently framed as representation or community development, with limited engagement in community activism or policy reform. Programs were variably integrated, often elective or episodic rather than longitudinal. Implementation gaps were evident: only 56% articulated measurable advocacy competencies, 16% demonstrated sequenced progression, and 22% showed programmatic assessment alignment. Assessment was predominantly faculty-driven, with minimal community feedback and rare measurement of system-level impact. Evaluation focused largely on learner knowledge (Kirkpatrick level 2), with little evidence of behaviour change or structural outcomes.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Advocacy education has advanced in visibility but remains conceptually under-specified, structurally fragmented, and weakly evaluated. By integrating complementary frameworks, this review identifies where breakdowns occur at the levels of meaning, design, and enactment. Educators should embed advocacy longitudinally, integrate community co-creation, and use assessment approaches that measure behavioural change and social impact. These findings are synthesised into five evidence-informed design principles presented as practice points to guide advocacy curriculum development and evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":18643,"journal":{"name":"Medical Teacher","volume":" ","pages":"1592-1605"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Teacher","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2026.2649963","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Health advocacy is recognised globally as a core physician competency yet remains one of the most challenging domains to teach, assess, and evaluate. Despite regulatory emphasis, integration into undergraduate medical curricula is inconsistent and poorly aligned with professional frameworks. This review maps and critically analyses how health advocacy has been conceptualised, implemented, and assessed in undergraduate medical education over the past two decades.

Methods: A scoping review following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines was undertaken, incorporating critical interpretive synthesis to move beyond description towards theory development. Thirty-two studies (2003-2025) were identified from EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Carlisle's advocacy domains, CanMEDS competencies, Van Melle's implementation components, and Kirkpatrick's evaluation levels were applied as complementary lenses.

Results: Advocacy education was most frequently framed as representation or community development, with limited engagement in community activism or policy reform. Programs were variably integrated, often elective or episodic rather than longitudinal. Implementation gaps were evident: only 56% articulated measurable advocacy competencies, 16% demonstrated sequenced progression, and 22% showed programmatic assessment alignment. Assessment was predominantly faculty-driven, with minimal community feedback and rare measurement of system-level impact. Evaluation focused largely on learner knowledge (Kirkpatrick level 2), with little evidence of behaviour change or structural outcomes.

Discussion: Advocacy education has advanced in visibility but remains conceptually under-specified, structurally fragmented, and weakly evaluated. By integrating complementary frameworks, this review identifies where breakdowns occur at the levels of meaning, design, and enactment. Educators should embed advocacy longitudinally, integrate community co-creation, and use assessment approaches that measure behavioural change and social impact. These findings are synthesised into five evidence-informed design principles presented as practice points to guide advocacy curriculum development and evaluation.

20年来本科医学教育中的健康倡导培训:范围综述
导言:健康宣传是全球公认的核心医师能力,但仍然是最具挑战性的领域之一,以教,评估和评估。尽管监管强调,整合到本科医学课程是不一致的,与专业框架不一致。这篇综述描绘并批判性地分析了过去二十年来健康宣传是如何在本科医学教育中被概念化、实施和评估的。方法:根据Arksey和O'Malley的框架和PRISMA-ScR指南进行范围审查,结合批判性解释性综合,从描述转向理论发展。从EMBASE、PubMed、Scopus和Web of Science中确定了32项研究(2003-2025)。Carlisle的倡导领域、CanMEDS能力、Van Melle的实施成分和Kirkpatrick的评估水平作为互补的透镜。结果:倡导教育最常被框定为代表或社区发展,对社区行动主义或政策改革的参与有限。项目的整合程度不同,通常是选择性的或阶段性的,而不是纵向的。实施差距明显:只有56%表达了可衡量的倡导能力,16%展示了顺序进展,22%显示了规划评估一致性。评估主要是教师驱动的,很少有社区反馈,很少有系统级影响的测量。评估主要集中在学习者的知识上(Kirkpatrick level 2),很少有证据表明行为改变或结构性结果。讨论:宣传教育在可见性方面取得了进步,但在概念上仍不明确,结构上支离破碎,评估薄弱。通过整合互补框架,本综述确定了在意义、设计和制定层面发生故障的地方。教育工作者应该纵向嵌入宣传,整合社区共同创造,并使用衡量行为变化和社会影响的评估方法。这些发现被综合成五个循证设计原则,作为指导倡导课程开发和评估的实践点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Medical Teacher
Medical Teacher 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
8.50%
发文量
396
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Teacher provides accounts of new teaching methods, guidance on structuring courses and assessing achievement, and serves as a forum for communication between medical teachers and those involved in general education. In particular, the journal recognizes the problems teachers have in keeping up-to-date with the developments in educational methods that lead to more effective teaching and learning at a time when the content of the curriculum—from medical procedures to policy changes in health care provision—is also changing. The journal features reports of innovation and research in medical education, case studies, survey articles, practical guidelines, reviews of current literature and book reviews. All articles are peer reviewed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书