Enhancing Physician Advocacy Through Collaboration With Government Relations: Report From the Health Policy Scholars Program

被引:3
作者
Stewart, Amanda M. [1 ]
Lee, Lois K. [2 ]
Bettenhausen, Jessica L. [3 ]
Shah, Anita N. [4 ]
Jarvis, Lenore R. [1 ]
Keller, David [5 ]
Gambill, Lauren K. [6 ]
机构
[1] Childrens Natl Hosp, Div Emergency Med, 111 Michigan Ave NW, Washington, DC 20010 USA
[2] Boston Childrens Hosp, Div Emergency Med, Boston, MA USA
[3] Childrens Mercy Kansas City, Div Hosp Med, Kansas City, MO USA
[4] Cincinnati Childrens Hosp Med Ctr, Div Hosp Med, Cincinnati, OH USA
[5] Childrens Hosp Colorado, Dept Pediat, Aurora, CO USA
[6] Univ Texas Austin, Dell Med Sch, Div Hosp Med, Austin, TX USA
关键词
advocacy; experiential learning; faculty develop- ment; government relations; policy;
D O I
10.1016/j.acap.2023.11.005
中图分类号
R72 [儿科学];
学科分类号
100202 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE: To explore barriers, facilitators, and benefits of collaboration between academic pediatricians and institutional offices of government relations (OGR) to enhance policy advocacy efforts. METHODS : The Academic Pediatric Associations' Health Policy Scholars met with the government relations team in their affiliated institutions as part of their experiential learning curriculum. Afterward, they submitted written reflections, which were coded and analyzed using inductive qualitative content analysis to identify key themes. RESULTS : Reflections were completed by 21 of 23 (91.3%) participants. Most participants (76.2%) were faculty at freestanding children's hospitals and had been at their institutions < 5 years (52.3%) or 5 to 10 years (33.3%). Institutional OGR structure varied widely and not all institutions had well-defined priorities. Key themes of the reflections included that OGRs often had dynamic priorities and fiscal considerations frequently took precedence. Barriers to physician involvement with OGR are often related to difficulty identifying the correct staff contact and not having the time and support for advocacy work. Facilitators included leveraging existing relationships and collaborations, including those of peer or mentor connections to the OGR staff. Anticipated benefits to both OGR and physicians included improved knowledge of advocacy opportunities, enhanced advocacy efforts leveraging physicians' expertise and patient stories, and message alignment and amplification of physician and institutional advocacy work. CONCLUSIONS : Collaboration between physician-advocates and institutional OGR is feasible and, with orientation and mentorship, may facilitate improved physician and institutional policy advocacy efforts. Supporting this type of collaboration may enhance physician and institutional advocacy on behalf of their shared patients and communities.
引用
收藏
页码:820 / 825
页数:6
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]  
Academic Pediatric Association, Health Policy Scholars Program (HPSP)
[2]  
American Academy of Pediatrics Board of Directors Executive Committee, 2021, Acad Pediatr, V21, pS92, DOI 10.1016/j.acap.2021.09.002
[3]  
[Anonymous], Social Determinants of Health-Healthy People 2030 | health.gov
[4]  
[Anonymous], What is experiential learning?
[5]  
Beck Andrew F, 2021, Acad Pediatr, V21, pS200, DOI 10.1016/j.acap.2021.04.010
[6]   Making Advocacy Part of Your Job Working for Children in Any Practice Setting [J].
Beers, Lee Savio ;
Williams-Willingham, Melinda A. ;
Chamberlain, Lisa J. .
PEDIATRIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2023, 70 (01) :25-34
[7]   Perspective: Physician Advocacy: What Is It and How Do We Do It? [J].
Earnest, Mark A. ;
Wong, Shale L. ;
Federico, Steven G. .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2010, 85 (01) :63-67
[8]   Effective Legislative Advocacy - Lessons from Successful Medical Trainee Campaigns [J].
Griffiths, Elizabeth P. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2017, 376 (25) :2409-2411
[9]   Qualitative Research Methods for Medical Educators [J].
Hanson, Janice L. ;
Balmer, Dorene F. ;
Giardino, Angelo P. .
ACADEMIC PEDIATRICS, 2011, 11 (05) :375-386
[10]   Three approaches to qualitative content analysis [J].
Hsieh, HF ;
Shannon, SE .
QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH, 2005, 15 (09) :1277-1288