Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38689263›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2024

Physician engagement in reproductive health advocacy: findings from a mixed methods evaluation of a leadership and advocacy program.

Heidi E Jones, Meredith Manze, Anita Brakman, Amy Kwan, MiQuel Davies, Diana Romero

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Heidi E JonesCity University of New York Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy (CUNY SPH), 55 W. 125th St #7th Floor, 10027, New York, NY, USA. Heidi.Jones@sph.cuny.edu.
Meredith ManzeCity University of New York Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy (CUNY SPH), 55 W. 125th St #7th Floor, 10027, New York, NY, USA.
Anita BrakmanPhysicians for Reproductive Health, Hartsdale, NY, USA.
Amy KwanCity University of New York Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy (CUNY SPH), 55 W. 125th St #7th Floor, 10027, New York, NY, USA.
MiQuel DaviesPhysicians for Reproductive Health, Hartsdale, NY, USA.
Diana RomeroCity University of New York Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy (CUNY SPH), 55 W. 125th St #7th Floor, 10027, New York, NY, USA.
The Graduate Center, CUNY · USInstitute for Reproductive Health · US

Funding

Anonymous Foundation NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical curricula include advocacy competencies, but how much physicians engage in advocacy and what enables this engagement is not well characterized. The authors assessed facilitators and barriers to advocacy identified by physician alumni of a reproductive health advocacy training program.

methodsThe authors present secondary results from a mixed methods program evaluation from 2018 to 2020, using alumni data from a cross-sectional survey (n = 231) and in-depth interviews (IDIs, n = 36). The survey measured engagement in policy, media, professional organization, and medical education advocacy and the value placed on the community fostered by the program (eight questions, Cronbach's alpha = 0.81). The authors estimated the association of community value score with advocacy engagement using multivariable Poisson regression to estimate prevalence ratios and analyzed IDI data inductively.

resultsOver one third of alumni were highly engaged in legislative policy (n = 90, 39%), professional organizations (n = 98, 42%), or medical education (n = 89, 39%), with fewer highly active in media-based advocacy (n = 54, 23%) in the year prior to the survey. Survey and IDI data demonstrated that passion, sense of urgency, confidence in skills, and the program's emphasis on different forms of advocacy facilitated engagement in advocacy, while insufficient time, safety concerns, and sense of effort redundancies were barriers. The program community was also an important facilitator, especially for "out loud" efforts and for those working in environments perceived as hostile to abortion care (e.g., alumni in hostile environments with high community value scores were 1.8 times [95% CI 1.3, 2.6] as likely to report medium/high levels of media advocacy compared to those with low scores after adjusting for age, gender, and clinical specialty).

conclusionPhysician advocacy training curricula should include both skills- and community-building and identify a full range of forms of advocacy. Community-building is especially important for physician advocacy for reproductive health services such as abortion care.

Indexed as

LeadershipReproductive HealthAdultCross-Sectional StudiesCurriculumFemaleHumansMalePatient AdvocacyPhysician EngagementPhysiciansProgram EvaluationAbortionAdvocacyPhysician trainingReproductive health

Identifiers

PMID38689263
PMCPMC11061897
OpenAlexW4396530324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.