Dataset Information

Expanding Health Policy and Advocacy Education for Graduate Trainees.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Long T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4535222 | biostudies-other | 2014 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:PurposeA better understanding of how communication skills education impacts trainees' communication skills is important for continual improvement in graduate medical education (GME). Guided by the Kirkpatrick Model, this review focused on studies that measured communication skills in either simulated or clinical settings. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the effect of experiential communication skills education on GME trainees' communication behaviors.MethodFive databases were searched for studies published between 2001 and 2021 using terms representing the concepts of medical trainees, communication, training, and skills and/or behaviors. Included studies had an intervention design, focused only on GME trainees as learners, used experiential methods, and had an outcome measure of communication skills behavior that was assessed by a simulated or standardized patient (SP), patient, family member, or outside observer. Studies were examined for differences in outcomes based on study design; simulated versus clinical evaluation setting; outside observer versus SP, patient, or family member evaluator; and length of training.ResultsSeventy-seven studies were ultimately included. Overall, 54 (70%) studies reported some positive findings (i.e., change in behavior). There were 44 (57%) single-group pre-post studies, 13 (17%) nonrandomized control studies, and 20 (26%) randomized control studies. Positive findings were frequent in single-group designs (80%) and were likely in nonrandomized (62%) and randomized (55%) control trials. Positive findings were likely in studies evaluating communication behavior in simulated (67%) and clinical (78%) settings as well as in studies with outside observer (63%) and SP, patient, and family member (64%) evaluators.ConclusionsThis review demonstrates strong support that experiential communication skills education can impact GME trainees' communication behaviors. Marked heterogeneity in communication trainings and evaluation measures, even among subgroups, did not allow for meta-analysis or comparative efficacy evaluation of different studies. Future studies would benefit from homogeneity in curricular and evaluation measures.

Project description:BackgroundDespite accumulating evidence of the implications of trade policy for public health, trade and health sectors continue to operate largely in silos. Numerous barriers to advancing health have been identified, including the dominance of a neoliberal paradigm, powerful private sector interests, and constraints associated with policymaking processes. Scholars and policy actors have recommended improved governance practices for trade policy, including: greater transparency and accountability; intersectoral collaboration; the use of health impact assessments; South-South networking; and mechanisms for civil society participation. These policy prescriptions have been generated from specific cases, such as the World Trade Organization's Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health or specific instances of trade-related policymaking at the national level. There has not yet been a comprehensive analysis of what enables the elevation of health goals on trade policy agendas. This narrative review seeks to address this gap by collating and analysing known studies across different levels of policymaking and different health issues.ResultsSixty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Health issues that received attention on trade policy agendas included: access to medicines, food nutrition and food security, tobacco control, non-communicable diseases, access to knowledge, and asbestos harm. This has occurred in instances of domestic and regional policymaking, and in bilateral, regional and global trade negotiations, as well as in trade disputes and challenges. We identified four enabling conditions for elevation of health in trade-related policymaking: favourable media attention; leadership by trade and health ministers; public support; and political party support. We identified six strategies successfully used by advocates to influence these conditions: using and translating multiple forms of evidence, acting in coalitions, strategic framing, leveraging exogenous factors, legal strategy, and shifting forums.ConclusionThe analysis demonstrates that while technical evidence is important, political strategy is necessary for elevating health on trade agendas. The analysis provides lessons that can be explored in the wider commercial determinants of health where economic and health interests often collide.

Project description:ObjectivesThe objectives of this study are to (1) identify Graduate Public Health (GPH) programmes with an integrated practicum, (2) determine current practice for practicum design and (3) use the information to make recommendations to inform the design of Public Health Graduate programme practicums.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesAcademic Ranking World Universities 2019 was used to identify top 10 institutions in each geographical hub offering GPH programmes. Each GPH programme website was searched for practicum information.Eligibility criteriaGPH programmes offering a practice-based component as a requirement in their curriculum.Data extraction and synthesisOne reviewer screened GPH websites for eligibility and extracted data. Verification of data for accuracy and completeness was done on 10% of the sample by the second author. Data were compiled into an Excel file and were analysed to describe the duration, timing, credit, contact hours, preceptor requirements, prerequisites, objectives, deliverables and methods of evaluation of the practice-based component.ResultsOut of the 108 GPH programmes screened, a total of 35 programmes were included. There was a significant variation in required practicum duration ranging from 4 to 16 weeks. Only 31% specifically outlined prerequisites to be completed before the initiation of the practicum. More than half (57%) had a published list of core competencies. A majority of practicum did not provide criteria for appropriate preceptors (63%) and their responsibilities (66%). All programmes listed assessment criteria however the majority (57%) did not specify if the practicum was graded or a for-credit component.ConclusionsThe integration of practical components into curricula is inconsistent. This research resulted in 14 recommendations intended to guide GPH practicum design. We propose that this study be used as a tool to spark a global dialogue about best practices in GPH education through the identification of common practices and opportunities for improvement.

Dataset Information

Expanding Health Policy and Advocacy Education for Graduate Trainees.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets