Through a Tainted Lens: A Qualitatve Study of Medical Learners’ Thinking About Patient ‘Deservingness’ of Health Advocacy

Abstract

Introduction: While health advocacy is a key component of many competency frameworks, mounting evidence suggests that learners do not see it as core to their learning and future practice. When learners do advocate for their patients, they characterize this work as ‘going above and beyond’ for a select few patients. When they think about advocacy in this way, learners choose who deserves their efforts. For educators and policymakers to support learners in making these decisions thoughtfully and ethically, we must first understand how they are currently thinking about patient deservingness. Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews with 29 undergraduate and postgraduate medical learners, across multiple sites and disciplines, to discuss their experiences of and decision-making about health advocacy. We then carried out a thematic analysis to understand how learners decided when and for whom to advocate. Stemming from initial inductive coding, we then developed a deductive coding framework, based in existing theory conceptualizing ‘deservingness.’ Results: Learners saw their patients as deserving of advocacy if they believed that the patient: was not responsible for their condition, was more in need of support than others, had a positive attitude, was working to improve their health, and shared similarities to the learner. Learners noted the tensions inherent in, and discomfort with, their own thinking about patient deservingness. Discussion: Learners’ decisions about advocacy deservingness are rooted in their preconceptions about the patient. Explicit curriculum and conversations about advocacy decisions are needed to support learners in making advocacy decisions equitably.