Advocacy for public health: a primer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Chapman S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1732774 | biostudies-literature | 2004 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Advocacy for public health: a primer.
Journal of epidemiology and community health 20040501 5
Public health advocacy is the strategic use of news media to advance a public policy initiative, often in the face of opposition. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:This article presents 14 quick tips to build a team to crowdsource data for public health advocacy. It includes tips around team building and logistics, infrastructure setup, media and industry outreach, and project wrap-up and archival for posterity.
| S-EPMC10513213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:SARS CoV-2 WGS (Georgia Department of Public Health)
| PRJNA713775 | ENA
Project description:IntroductionACGME program requirements for graduate medical education state that pediatric residency programs should include elements of child advocacy education. Finding readily available, easily implementable advocacy curricula for pediatric residency programs is challenging. We conducted a generalized curricular needs assessment via literature review and a targeted needs assessment with health care providers and advocacy leaders and developed and implemented a child health advocacy curriculum in a pediatrics residency program.MethodsDelivered across 9 months, the curriculum included three components: electronic resources, didactic sessions, and interactive workshops aimed at developing advocacy skills in the context of pressing child health issues. The learner audience was PGY 1 through PGY 4. The curriculum was evaluated using pre- and postcurriculum surveys.ResultsOur curriculum advanced child advocacy locally by establishing partnerships with state and federal American Academy of Pediatrics and pediatric residency programs, teaching residents to generate advocacy action plans, and implanting a longitudinal advocacy curriculum in the residency program. Sixty-four of 70 residents participated in the curriculum: 33% were PGY 1, 31% were PGY 2, 30% were PGY 3, and 6% were PGY 4. Pre- and postcurriculum surveys demonstrated improved knowledge of and comfort level with advocacy after curriculum completion.DiscussionChild advocacy teaching improved resident and faculty awareness about child health issues in the community, as well as understanding of pathways to advocate for child health. The curriculum is reproducible and feasible and can assist other institutions to develop advocacy education and skill development programs.
| S-EPMC7062538 | biostudies-literature
Project description:UnlabelledPOLICY POINTS: Many barriers hamper advocacy for health equity, including the contemporary economic zeitgeist, the biomedical health perspective, and difficulties cooperating across policy sectors on the issue. Effective advocacy should include persistent efforts to raise awareness and understanding of the social determinants of health. Education on the social determinants as part of medical training should be encouraged, including professional training within disadvantaged communities. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy.ContextHealth inequalities are systematic differences in health among social groups that are caused by unequal exposure to-and distributions of-the social determinants of health (SDH). They are persistent between and within countries despite action to reduce them. Advocacy is a means of promoting policies that improve health equity, but the literature on how to do so effectively is dispersed. The aim of this review is to synthesize the evidence in the academic and gray literature and to provide a body of knowledge for advocates to draw on to inform their efforts.MethodsThis article is a systematic review of the academic literature and a fixed-length systematic search of the gray literature. After applying our inclusion criteria, we analyzed our findings according to our predefined dimensions of advocacy for health equity. Last, we synthesized our findings and made a critical appraisal of the literature.FindingsThe policy world is complex, and scientific evidence is unlikely to be conclusive in making decisions. Timely qualitative, interdisciplinary, and mixed-methods research may be valuable in advocacy efforts. The potential impact of evidence can be increased by "packaging" it as part of knowledge transfer and translation. Increased contact between researchers and policymakers could improve the uptake of research in policy processes. Researchers can play a role in advocacy efforts, although health professionals and disadvantaged people, who have direct contact with or experience of hardship, can be particularly persuasive in advocacy efforts. Different types of advocacy messages can accompany evidence, but messages should be tailored to advocacy target. Several barriers hamper advocacy efforts. The most frequently cited in the academic literature are the current political and economic zeitgeist and related public opinion, which tend to blame disadvantaged people for their ill health, even though biomedical approaches to health and political short-termism also act as barriers. These barriers could be tackled through long-term actions to raise public awareness and understanding of the SDH and through training of health professionals in advocacy. Advocates need to take advantage of "windows of opportunity," which open and close quickly, and demonstrate expertise and credibility.ConclusionsThis article brings together for the first time evidence from the academic and the gray literature and provides a building block for efforts to advocate for health equity. Evidence regarding many of the dimensions is scant, and additional research is merited, particularly concerning the applicability of findings outside the English-speaking world. Advocacy organizations have a central role in advocating for health equity, given the challenges bridging the worlds of civil society, research, and policy.
| S-EPMC4462882 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAdvocacy and service-learning increasingly are being incorporated into medical education and residency training. The Jefferson Service Training in Advocacy for Residents and Students (JeffSTARS) curriculum is an educational program for Thomas Jefferson University and Nemours trainees. The JeffSTARS Advocacy and Community Partnership Elective is one of two core components of the larger curriculum.MethodsThe elective is a monthlong rotation that provides trainees in their senior year of medical school or residency training the opportunity to learn about health advocacy in depth. Trainees develop a basic understanding of social determinants of health, learn about health policy, participate in legislative office visits, and work directly with community agencies on a mutually agreeable project. The elective provides advocacy training to self-selected trainees from area medical schools and residency programs to develop a cadre of physicians empowered to advocate for child health.ResultsJeffSTARS has advanced the field of child health advocacy locally by forging new partnerships and building a network of experts, agencies, and academic institutions. After this experience, trainees realize that their health expertise is very valuable to health advocacy and policy development. JeffSTARS is recognized nationally as one of a growing number of advocacy training programs for students and residents, with trainees presenting selected projects at national meetings.DiscussionTeaching advocacy has raised awareness about social determinants of health, community resources, and the medical home. One of the many benefits of the elective has been to strengthen the skills and expertise of trainees and faculty members alike.
| S-EPMC6365684 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClimate change poses a risk of health catastrophes and must be expeditiously addressed across the health care sector. Physicians are considered trustworthy and are well positioned to discuss climate change with patients. A unified strategy by all U.S. medical societies is essential to effectively mitigate their carbon footprint and address health concerns.MethodsWe conducted a review of the public facing websites of member organizations of the AMA House of Delegates and the AMA, which were scored based on inclusion of content related to climate change in position statements or policies, task forces or committees, patient education materials, practice recommendations and any official society publications. Membership in the Medical Society Consortium on Climate and Health or participation in the organization My Green Doctor were recorded as indicators of a commitment to providing educational resources about mitigation and adaptation to climate change. The availability of a virtual option for annual meetings, as a potential means to reduce the carbon footprint of attendees, was trended from 2021 to 2022.ResultsFifty out of 111 U.S. medical organizations (45%) had at least one metric with a reference to climate change and sixty-one organizations (55%) had no evidence of such website content. Out of 111 websites, only 20% (N = 22) had position statements or policies pertaining to climate change, 11% (N = 12) had committees or task forces dealing with climate change, 8% (N = 9) provided patient education resources on climate change, 21% (N = 23) included green practice recommendations and 45% (N = 50) had an article in an official society publication addressing climate change. Only 14% (N = 15) were listed as member societies of the Medical Consortium on Climate Change and 2% (N = 2) were participating organizations with My Green Doctor.ConclusionsViewed through the lens of medical society websites, there was a wide variation in efforts to address climate change. The high performing organizations can serve as a guide for other societies to help mitigate and adapt to the climate emergency.
| S-EPMC9585738 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Scotland is the first country in the world to pass legislation introducing a minimum unit price (MUP) for alcohol in an attempt to reduce consumption and associated harms by increasing the price of the cheapest alcohol. We investigated the competing ways in which policy stakeholders presented the debate. We then established whether a change in framing helped explain the policy's emergence.We conducted a detailed policy case study through analysis of evidence submitted to the Scottish parliament, and in-depth, one-to-one interviews (n = 36) with politicians, civil servants, advocates, researchers, and industry representatives.Public- and voluntary-sector stakeholders tended to support MUP, while industry representatives were more divided. Two markedly different ways of presenting alcohol as a policy problem were evident. Critics of MUP (all of whom were related to industry) emphasized social disorder issues, particularly among young people, and hence argued for targeted approaches. In contrast, advocates for MUP (with the exception of those in industry) focused on alcohol as a health issue arising from overconsumption at a population level, thus suggesting that population-based interventions were necessary. Industry stakeholders favoring MUP adopted a hybrid framing, maintaining several aspects of the critical framing. Our interview data showed that public health advocates worked hard to redefine the policy issue by deliberately presenting a consistent alternative framing.Framing alcohol policy as a broad, multisectoral, public health issue that requires a whole-population approach has been crucial to enabling policymakers to seriously consider MUP, and public health advocates intentionally presented alcohol policy in this way. This reframing helped prioritize public health considerations in the policy debate and represents a deliberate strategy for consideration by those advocating for policy change around the world and in other public health areas.
| S-EPMC4089371 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Education in health policy and advocacy is recognized as an important component of health professional training. To date, curricula have only been assessed at the medical school level. OBJECTIVE: We sought to address the gap in these curricula for residents and other health professionals in primary care. INNOVATION: We created a health policy and advocacy curriculum for the VA Connecticut Healthcare System, Center of Excellence in Primary Care Education, an interprofessional, ambulatory-based, training program that includes internal medicine residents, nurse practitioner fellows, health psychology fellows, and pharmacy residents. The policy module focuses on health care finance and delivery, and the advocacy module emphasizes negotiation skills and opinion-based writing. Trainee attitudes were surveyed before and after the course, and using the Wilcoxon signed rank test, relative change was determined. Knowledge acquisition was evaluated with precourse and postcourse examinations using a paired sample t test. RESULTS: From July 2011 through June 2013, 16 trainees completed the course. In the postcourse survey, trainees demonstrated improved comfort with understanding health law and the American health care system (Likert mean increased from 2.1 to 3.0, P = .01), as well as with associated advocacy skills (Likert mean increased from 2.0 to 2.9, P = .04). Knowledge-based test scores also showed significant improvement (increasing from 55% to 78% correct, P ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: Our curriculum integrating core health policy knowledge with advocacy skills represents a novel approach in postgraduate health professional education and resulted in sustained improvement in knowledge and comfort with health policy and advocacy.
| S-EPMC4535222 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundIn some jurisdictions, patients and patient groups may be invited to provide input when Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is used to inform decisions about which medicines should be subsidised or funded. This input can help frame the evidence from a patient perspective, address uncertainties in the evidence and interpret it for the local setting. However, there is currently no evidence linking patient involvement with positive reimbursement decisions.AimWe aimed to understand the expectations of patient involvement in the reimbursement process, especially among cancer patient advocacy groups (PAGs) in New Zealand (Aotearoa), South Korea and Taiwan.MethodsWe developed an online survey to help understand the role that cancer PAGs play in reimbursement processes and identify knowledge gaps about the processes that might impact the efforts of PAGs. The survey elicited the views of staff and patients affiliated with PAGs (n = 43) on current practices and how the assessment and reimbursement of new cancer drugs might be improved.ResultsThere was variability in knowledge of the HTA assessment processes and in experience of being involved in them. Those with HTA experience were more likely to have confidence in the process. Those who had not been involved tended to have little awareness of, or frustration with, decision-making processes. Most identified cost, finances and economic assessments as key considerations in current processes. Some respondents had clear ideas about how their knowledge and involvement could improve processes to determine the value of new medicines. However, for many, a lack of information about the basis for decision making and opportunities to be involved was a barrier to identifying process improvement.ConclusionsHTA is implemented primarily in countries seeking to have fair and equitable processes for funding medicines. PAGs often recognise the financial challenges of funding new medicines and share the desire for procedural fairness. The connection PAGs make between patient involvement and improved access to new medicines may be based on the belief they can add information to the evidence base, help solve problems, ensure fairness through transparency and/or influence the culture towards increased access to medicines they value.
| S-EPMC8613914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Organisation EGAO00000000131
| EGAO00000000131 | EGA