ArticleBMJ sexual & reproductive health2023
Physician perspectives of abortion advocacy: findings from a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMJ sexual & reproductive health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Defining advocacy in public health: a scoping review to inform policy, training, and equity-oriented action.International journal for equity in health · 2026Article
- Physician engagement in reproductive health advocacy: findings from a mixed methods evaluation of a leadership and advocacy program.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Organizing Primary Care Clinicians to Expand Reproductive Health Access: A Qualitative Program Evaluation.Family medicine · 2024Article
- Analysis of the health advocacy concept from the perspective of the evolutionary method.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveOur aim was to assess physicians' perspectives of what constitutes abortion advocacy and the skills needed to be effective in their efforts to safeguard legal abortion.
methodsAlumni from a physician training programme for sexual and reproductive health advocacy completed a cross-sectional survey including questions on perceived skills needed for effective advocacy. The research team conducted in-depth interviews (IDIs) with alumni, based on their level of engagement in advocacy. We present descriptive statistics for survey data and themes identified in the interview data using techniques informed by grounded theory.
resultsOf the survey respondents (n=231), almost a third (28.6%; n=66) felt the most important media skill they learnt was the ability to stay on message. The most important policy skill was communicating effectively with policymakers (47.0%; n=108), followed by distilling evidence for policymakers and laypeople (13.0%; n=30). In the IDIs (n=36), participants reported activities such as media interviews as clear examples of advocacy, but also considered implementing institutional policies and abortion provision to be advocacy. They discussed how individual comfort and capacity for advocacy activities may change over time, given personal and professional considerations. Regardless of the type of activity, physicians valued strategic communication and relationship-building skills.
conclusionsBased on our findings, training programmes that seek to mobilise physician advocates to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights should work with trainees to create a tailored advocacy plan that fits their personal and professional lives and goals. Regardless of the types of advocacy activities physicians focus on, strategic communication may be central in skills-based training.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.