7304MED Healthcare Systems: Reading Log on Structural Interventions

This assignment is a student's reading log based on articles discussing structural interventions in the U.S. healthcare system and physician training. The log includes critical analyses of the articles by Hansen and Metzl, focusing on their thesis, findings, accuracy, reliability, and validity. The student agrees with the need for collaboration between clinical professionals and other sectors but disagrees that all institutions lack such opportunities, citing internships and training programs as counter-examples. The student finds the paper useful for its recommendations to enhance clinicians' knowledge and competency, potentially improving clinical outcomes for community members. The reading log follows a template, providing structured responses to predefined criteria related to the articles.

7304MED HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS - READING LOG TEMPLATE
Student Name:
Student Number:
Criterion Response to Criterion
Correct Citation (in
APA6 format)
Hansen, H., & Metzl, J. M. (2017). New
medicine for the US health care
system: training physicians for
structural interventions. Academic
medicine: journal of the Association
of American Medical Colleges, 92(3),
279.
Hansen, H., & Metzl, J. (2016). Structural
competency in the US healthcare
crisis: putting social and policy
interventions into clinical
practice. Journal of bioethical
inquiry, 13(2), 179-183.
What is the main
thesis of the paper
To review the role played by the
healthcare practitioners in promoting
collaborative activities with social science
and law professionals, as an objective to
improve the population-level health
outcomes (Hansen & Metzl, 2017).
What are the main
findings of the
work?
The study found that adequate knowledge
for the existing barriers in social and legal
context is lacking. In order to resolve this
issue, practitioners require to have
practical working knowledge by making
collaboration with non-clinical
professionals.
How are you
assured of accuracy
within the paper
The authors review the structural and
theoretical framework of clinical education
across U.S., which assured of the
accuracy.
How are you
assured of
Reliability of the
measurements
used in the paper
The authors have undertaken review of
existing clinical course’ curriculum,
national conference attended by
professionals, and advocacy from
community health programs (Hansen &
Metzl, 2016). Also, they supported their
arguments based on peer-reviewed

Criterion Response to Criterion
articles, which assures the reliability.
How are you
assured of the
Validity of the
results
This is an argumentative review and the
presented facts are based on peer-
reviewed sources. The validity of the
results can only be determined
qualitatively with reference to existing
clinical training curriculum and social
challenges faced by the clinical
professionals, as detailed in the paper.
Can the findings be
generalized to the
wider community?
Yes, the generalization with community
can be found with issues like, inequality,
poor communication with patients, failure
to deliver information for legal support,
and ineffective promotional strategy for
community health.
Describe what you
agree with and/or
what you disagree
with in the paper.
I agree that available programs lack direct
collaboration of clinical professionals with
other personnel.
I disagree that not all the institutions offer
such opportunity. For example, internship
program, industrial training, and hand-on
workshop programs are the opportunities
that can fulfil the training requirement for
clinical professionals.
How useful (or not)
was the paper and
why have you
reached this
conclusion?
The paper is useful because it recommend
collaboration efforts, to enhance the
knowledge and practical competency of
clinicians.
With the adoption of mentioned approach,
the standards of clinical outcomes can be
significantly improved for the community
members.
*Use the definitions provided in the assessment instructions for each criteria listed in the left hand
criterion column of this template to guide your response to the criterion.
**To calculate your word limit, please be advised that this template contains 100 words when blank