Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42127417›Full record

ArticleJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2026

Experiences of professional public health advocacy in the UK health and social care system: a qualitative survey study [using the Theoretical Domains Framework].

Kaat Marynissen, Akshay Pabary, Malcolm Moffat

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2026. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  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

3 authors.

Kaat MarynissenPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Baddiley-Clark Building Richardson Road, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Akshay PabaryPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Baddiley-Clark Building Richardson Road, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.
Malcolm MoffatPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Baddiley-Clark Building Richardson Road, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE2 4AX, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8808-2626

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdvocacy of public health principles (PHP) is crucial to tackling health inequities. Advocacy skills are therefore a core competency of Public Health speciality training in the UK. A survey of UK-trained specialist registrars found that the perceived ability to advocate for PHP varied significantly across work settings. This study explores barriers and enablers to PHP advocacy across workplaces, offering insights into how advocacy can be better supported in the UK public health landscape.

methodsAn online survey was sent to UK-based public health specialty trainees, consultants, and public health practitioners on the portfolio route to consultant practice currently. Free-text survey responses were analysed using template analysis and the Theoretical Domains Framework.

resultsSixty-four respondents completed the survey. This study found that role clarity, organizational support, and advocacy skills significantly affect public health specialists' ability to advocate. Barriers included unclear responsibilities, fear of consequences, resource constraints, and inadequate training and mentorship. Supportive leadership and shared values facilitated success.

conclusionsTo promote advocacy, the Faculty of Public Health should ensure specialists are positioned as autonomous experts, address biases in recruitment, and integrate advocacy skills further into training. Organizations must evaluate how their structure, culture, and leadership support public health advocacy.

Indexed as

Public HealthHumansLeadershipQualitative ResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdomadvocacymanagement and policypublic healthwork environment

Identifiers

PMID42127417
PMCPMC13223560

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.