Centre for Education Research and Innovation, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Department of Oncology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Med Educ. 2024 Nov;58(11):1361-1368. doi: 10.1111/medu.15430. Epub 2024 May 15.
While health advocacy is an established physician role, most of the educational attention to advocacy has been at the individual patient level. Public advocacy-efforts to effect change at the level of communities, populations or society-remains a poorly defined concept whose educational foundation is underdeveloped. To enrich our understanding of public advocacy, we explored how professionals in two disciplines-medicine and law-have approached its tasks and experienced its challenges.
Using constructivist grounded theory, we interviewed 18 professionals (nine physicians, eight lawyers and one qualified in both disciplines) who engage in public advocacy. We used constant comparison throughout an iterative process of data collection and analysis to develop an understanding of what it means to be a professional in the public domain.
Public advocacy work occurs at the intersection of personal and professional identities. Lawyers perceived public advocacy as an embedded element of their professional identity, while physicians more often viewed it as outside their core professional scope. Nonetheless, professional identity influenced how both groups conducted their work. Physicians were more likely to draw on professional attitudes (e.g. their orientation towards evidence and their trusted social position), while lawyers were more likely to draw on professional skills (e.g. building an argument and litigating test cases). The work requires courage and often demands that individuals tolerate personal and professional risk.
While medicine has enshrined advocacy in its competency frameworks, it is the legal profession whose practitioners more fully embrace advocacy as intrinsic to professional identity, suggesting that roles are difficult to engineer or impose. Collaboration across public-facing professions like medicine and law creates opportunities to reimagine public advocacy, to identify the skills required to do it well and to refresh educational strategies.
虽然健康倡导是医生的既定角色,但大多数倡导教育都集中在个体患者层面。公共倡导——旨在影响社区、人群或社会层面的变革——仍然是一个定义不明确的概念,其教育基础尚未得到充分发展。为了丰富我们对公共倡导的理解,我们探讨了医学和法律这两个学科的专业人士如何处理其任务并应对其挑战。
使用建构主义扎根理论,我们采访了 18 名从事公共倡导工作的专业人士(9 名医生、8 名律师和 1 名同时具备这两个学科背景的专业人士)。我们在数据收集和分析的迭代过程中使用不断比较的方法,以了解在公共领域成为专业人士的含义。
公共倡导工作发生在个人和职业身份的交叉点上。律师认为公共倡导是其职业身份的固有组成部分,而医生则更多地将其视为核心专业领域之外的工作。尽管如此,职业身份还是影响了这两个群体开展工作的方式。医生更倾向于利用专业态度(例如,他们对证据的倾向和受信任的社会地位),而律师则更倾向于利用专业技能(例如,构建论点和诉讼测试案例)。这项工作需要勇气,往往要求个人承受个人和职业风险。
尽管医学已经将倡导纳入其能力框架,但法律职业的从业者更充分地将倡导视为职业身份的内在组成部分,这表明角色很难设计或强加。医学和法律等面向公众的专业之间的合作创造了重新构想公共倡导、确定做好这项工作所需的技能以及更新教育策略的机会。