How Are We Teaching Advocacy? A National Survey of Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors.

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.

"That is when I understood everything": Ideological trajectories of pro-choice female doctors in Mexico.

OBJECTIVES: There is little evidence about how physicians become abortion clinicians or advocates. We describe the ideological trajectories of pro-choice female Mexican doctors and the factors that made them pro-choice. STUDY DESIGN: In this qualitative study, we conducted semistructured interviews with members of the Mexican Network of Female Pro-choice Physicians. Participants came from eight diverse states. We used a feminist epistemology approach and analyzed data using inductive coding as well as a priori categories (becoming pro-choice, trajectories, and training). RESULTS: We included 24 female pro-choice physicians. We identified five intersecting factors that influenced becoming pro-choice: feminism, personal experiences, confrontation with the inequalities and violence that women experience, role models, and routine exposure to abortion care. Participants described three ideological trajectories: being pro-choice before studying medicine, not having a specific opinion, and changing from "pro-life" to "pro-choice." Participants described the absence of abortion training in medical schools, stigmatizing training, and the use of alternative training sources. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of training on abortion during medical education, a combination of intersecting personal as well as work-related experience may turn doctors into pro-choice abortion clinicians and/or advocates. The findings of this study may be used to develop comprehensive medical curricula as well as strategies directed at doctors who have never received training on abortion care, such as promoting interactions with nonmedical abortion providers, education on inequalities and violence against women, moving beyond public health to a human rights and gender perspective, and exposure to routine safe abortion care. IMPLICATIONS: Mexican female doctors become pro-choice clinicians who provide abortion care and/or advocates in spite of their medical education.

Climate Change Imperils Pediatric Health: Child Advocacy Through Fossil Fuel Divestment.

Climate change poses an existential threat to children's health. Divestment of ownership stakes in fossil fuel companies is one tool available to pediatricians to address climate change. Pediatricians are trusted messengers regarding children's health and therefore bear a unique responsibility to advocate for climate and health policies that affect children. Among the impacts of climate change on pediatric patients are allergic rhinitis and asthma; heat-related illnesses; premature birth; injuries from severe storms and fires; vector-borne diseases; and mental illnesses. Children are disproportionately affected as well by climate-related displacement of populations, drought, water shortages, and famine. The human-generated burning of fossil fuels emits greenhouse gases (GHG) such as carbon dioxide, which trap heat in the atmosphere and cause global warming. The US healthcare industry is responsible for 8.5% of the nation's entire greenhouse gases and toxic air pollutants. In this perspectives piece we review the principle of divestment as a strategy for improving childhood health. Healthcare professionals can help combat climate change by embracing divestment in their personal investment portfolios and by their universities, healthcare systems, and professional organizations. We encourage this collaborative organizational effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Preparing Doctors in Training for Health Activist Roles: A Cross-Institutional Community Organizing Workshop for Incoming Medical Residents.

INTRODUCTION: Physicians are increasingly being called on to address inequities created by social and structural determinants of health, yet few receive training in specific leadership skills that allow them to do so effectively. METHODS: We developed a workshop to introduce incoming medical interns from all specialties at Boston-area residency programs to community organizing as a framework for effective physician advocacy. We utilized didactic sessions, video examples, and small-group practice led by trained coaches to familiarize participants with one community organizing leadership skill-public narrative-as a means of creating the relationships that underlie collective action. We offered this 3-hour, cross-institutional workshop just prior to intern orientation and evaluated it through a postworkshop survey. RESULTS: In June 2019, 51 residents from 13 programs at seven academic medical centers attended this workshop. In the postworkshop survey, participants agreed with positive evaluative statements about the workshop's value and impact on their knowledge, with a mean score on all items of over 4 (5-point Likert scale, 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; response rate: 34 of 51). Free-text comments emphasized the workshop's effectiveness in evoking positive feelings of solidarity, community, and professional identity. DISCUSSION: The workshop effectively introduced participants to community organizing and public narrative, allowed them to apply the principles of public narrative by developing their own stories of self, and demonstrated how these practices can be utilized in physician advocacy. The workshop also connected participants to their motivations for pursuing medicine and stimulated interest in more community organizing training.

The Role of Physician Advocacy in Achieving Health Equity: Where Is the Allergist-Immunologist?

As allergists and immunologists many of us have likely worked in the capacity of being an advocate for individual patients. However, how many of us are aware of our ability to be effective advocates who address root causes of health issues through policy changes? Physician advocacy is not a core competency medical specialty training (except pediatrics), yet physicians' clinical and research expertise and professional experience can be leveraged to shape policy. This rostrum describes the spectrum of activities for a physician advocate, barriers to physician advocacy, and actionable steps to encouraging the training and expansion of advocacy efforts by allergists and immunologists.

Using the health humanities to impart disability competencies to undergraduate medical students.

BACKGROUND: Disability competencies were included, for the first time, in India's new undergraduate competency-based curriculum as a result of physician-led advocacy in 2019; the regulatory body also recommended the use of the humanities in medicine. OBJECTIVE: To use tools from the health humanities to impart disability competencies and help students appreciate the social and human rights issues associated with disability. METHODS: A module was developed and piloted in the foundation course on the new cohort of students. The tools included storytelling, visual art, poetry, narratives, and Forum Theatre; many facilitators were doctors and patients with disabilities. Learners were introduced to the concept of universal design through a field visit. Quantitative and open-ended feedback was taken from learners after module delivery; reflections were sought after four months. RESULTS: The data revealed that the humanities tools used in the module had the potential to help learners explore struggle and oppression and to expose discriminatory attitudes. Learners were able to think beyond the hegemony of normalcy, and show an understanding of diversity, dignity, autonomy, disableism, social inclusion, equity, and universal design. They admitted to the misconceptions they carried and showed keenness to advocate for change. CONCLUSION: This study piloted a novel disability competencies module using tools from the health humanities and found that learners were able to engage with and show an understanding of the social and human rights issues associated with disability. Conversations by, for, and with people with disabilities must be part of such interventions in developing and delivering disability courses.

The future of physician advocacy: a survey of U.S. medical students.

BACKGROUND: Advocacy is a core component of medical professionalism. It is unclear how educators can best prepare trainees for this professional obligation. We sought to assess medical students' attitudes toward advocacy, including activities and issues of interest, and to determine congruence with professional obligations. METHODS: A cross-sectional, web-based survey probed U.S. medical students' attitudes around 7 medical issues (e.g. nutrition/obesity, addiction) and 11 determinants of health (e.g. housing, transportation). Descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and regression analysis investigated associations with demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Of 240 students completing the survey, 53% were female; most were white (62%) or Asian (28%). Most agreed it is very important that physicians encourage medical organizations to advocate for public health (76%) and provide health-related expertise to the community (57%). More participants rated advocacy for medical issues as very important, compared to issues with indirect connections to health (p < 0.001). Generally, liberals and non-whites were likelier than others to value advocacy. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students reported strong interest in advocacy, particularly around health issues, consistent with professional standards. Many attitudes were associated with political affiliation and race. To optimize future physician advocacy, educators should provide opportunities for learning and engagement in issues of interest.

Infectious Diseases/Human Immunodeficiency Virus Physician Ambassadors: Advancing Policy to Improve Health.

Infectious diseases/human immunodeficiency virus (ID/HIV) physicians and other healthcare professionals advocate within the healthcare system to ensure adults and children receive effective treatment. These advocacy skills can be used to inform domestic and global infectious diseases policies to improve healthcare systems and public health. ID/HIV physicians have a unique frontline perspective to share with federal policymakers regarding how programs and policies benefit patients and public health. Providing this input is critical to the enactment of legislation that will maximize the response to infectious diseases. This article discusses the advocacy of ID/HIV physicians and other healthcare professionals in federal health policy. Key issues include funding for ID/HIV programs; the protection of public health and access to healthcare; improving research opportunities; and advancing the field of ID/HIV, including supporting the next generation of ID/HIV clinicians. The article also describes best practices for advocacy and provides case studies illustrating the impact of ID/HIV physician advocacy.

A Systematic Review of Advocacy Curricula in Graduate Medical Education.

BACKGROUND: Professionalism standards encourage physicians to participate in public advocacy on behalf of societal health and well-being. While the number of publications of advocacy curricula for GME-level trainees has increased, there has been no formal effort to catalog them. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the existing literature on curricula for teaching advocacy to GME-level trainees and synthesize the results to provide a resource for programs interested in developing advocacy curricula. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify articles published in English that describe advocacy curricula for graduate medical education trainees in the USA and Canada current to September 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify articles meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We abstracted information and themes on curriculum development, implementation, and sustainability. Learning objectives, educational content, teaching methods, and evaluations for each curriculum were also extracted. RESULTS: After reviewing 884 articles, we identified 38 articles meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Curricula were offered across a variety of specialties, with 84% offered in primary care specialties. There was considerable heterogeneity in the educational content of included advocacy curriculum, ranging from community partnership to legislative advocacy. Common facilitators of curriculum implementation included the American Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements, institutional support, and preexisting faculty experience. Common barriers were competing curricular demands, time constraints, and turnover in volunteer faculty and community partners. Formal evaluation revealed that advocacy curricula were acceptable to trainees and improved knowledge, attitudes, and reported self-efficacy around advocacy. DISCUSSION: Our systematic review of the medical education literature identified several advocacy curricula for graduate medical education trainees. These curricula provide templates for integrating advocacy education into GME-level training programs across specialties, but more work needs to be done to define standards and expectations around GME training for this professional activity.

Attitudes Toward Advocacy Do Not Match Actions: A Cross-sectional Survey of Residents and Fellows.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine baseline physician advocacy knowledge and attitudes of resident and fellow trainees at our institution to inform future graduate medical education (GME) activities. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was developed and administered to all house staff in 2014 at Lifespan Hospitals, affiliated with The Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University. RESULTS: The response rate was 24% (134/558). Eighty-eight percent reported voting in the 2012 presidential election, with lower participation in regional elections. Less than 25% felt comfortable explaining the Affordable Care Act, communicating with media, or influencing legislation on a health care issue. The majority (94%) agreed that "as a physician I have a duty to advocate." Few reported receiving adequate advocacy training in medical school (18%) or residency (12%). CONCLUSIONS: House staff agreed that physicians have a duty to advocate, but this did not translate into knowledge or action. GME should increase curricular efforts for trainees in the health care advocacy domain.

Factors affecting the uptake of cervical cancer screening among nurses in Singapore.

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors other than socioeconomic status that influence participation in cervical cancer screening. METHODS: A prospective, questionnaire-based, cross-sectional study was conducted among all female nurses working at Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, between November 1 and December 15, 2013. Characteristics assessed included age, knowledge score (0-10, on the basis of 10 true-or-false statements), perceived risk of cervical cancer, and health facility use. RESULTS: Among 2000 nurses, 1622 (81.1%) responded. The mean knowledge score was 4.70±1.76. Among 1593 nurses who reported on self-perception of risk, 97 (6.1%) reported high risk, 675 (42.4%) reported low risk, and 821 (51.5%) reported uncertainty. Of the 815 nurses reporting on their history of screening, 344 (42.2%) were screened regularly, 103 (12.6%) underwent opportunistic screening, and 368 (45.2%) had never undergone screening. The likelihood of screening was increased among women aged 35-4years, those who had recent experience of medical screening, those who had recently had a specialist consultation, or those who had recently had a consultation with a gynecologist (P<0.001 for all). Nurses undergoing regular screening reported positive effects of a doctor's recommendation, husband's encouragement, people talking about screening, and people close to the respondent undergoing screening. CONCLUSION: Advocacy and herd signaling positively influenced the cervical cancer screening rate.