[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Many health problems affecting children today are based in the community and cannot be easily addressed in the office setting. Child advocacy is an effective approach for pediatricians to take.
To describe pediatric residents' choices of advocacy topics and interventions.
Cross-sectional observational study.
Residents from 3 pediatric training programs participated in the Child Advocacy Curriculum, which featured standardized workshops and the development of individual advocacy projects. To evaluate the curriculum, project descriptions and material products were analyzed to determine individual advocacy topics, topic themes, and targets of project interventions. Differences among programs were assessed. Residents also completed an anonymous questionnaire assessing their experience with the Child Advocacy Curriculum.
Residents demonstrated a wide range of interests in selecting advocacy topics: 99 residents chose 38 different topics. The most common topic was obesity (13 residents) followed by health care access (9), teen pregnancy prevention (6), and oral health (5). Themes included health promotion and disease prevention, injury prevention, health care access, children with special health care needs, child development, at-risk populations, and the impact of media on child health. The project interventions targeted the local community most frequently (37%), followed by resident education (27%), hospital systems (21%), and public and health policy (15%). The vast majority of participating residents reported a positive experience with the Child Advocacy Curriculum.
The wide range of topics and settings in which residents developed projects illustrates residents' extensive interests and ingenuity in applying needed advocacy solutions to complex child health issues.
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 10/2005; 159(9):842-7. · 4.25 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Although leaders and other commentators have called for the medical profession's greater engagement in improving systems of care and population health, neither medical education nor the practice environment has fostered such engagement. Missing have been a clear definition of physicians' public roles, reasonable limits to what can be expected, and familiarity with tasks that are compatible with busy medical practices. We address these issues by proposing a definition and a conceptual model of public roles that require evidence of disease causation and are guided by the feasibility and efficacy of physician involvement. We then frame a public agenda for individual physicians and physician organizations that focuses on advocacy and community participation. By doing so, we aim to stimulate dialogue about the appropriateness of such roles and promote physician engagement with pressing health issues in the public arena.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 02/2004; 291(1):94-8. · 29.98 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Since Ernest Boyer's landmark 1990 report, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate, leaders in higher education, including academic medicine, have advocated that faculty members apply their expertise in new and creative ways in partnership with communities. Such community engagement can take many forms, including community-based teaching, research, clinical care, and service. There continues to be a gap, however, between the rhetoric of this idea and the reality of how promotion and tenure actually work in health professions schools. The Commission on Community-Engaged Scholarship in the Health Professions was established in October 2003 with funding from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to take a leadership role in creating a more supportive culture and reward system for community-engaged faculty in the nation's health professions schools. The authors prepared this article to inform the commission's deliberations and to stimulate discussion among educators in the health professions. The authors define the work that faculty engage in with communities, consider whether all work by faculty in community-based settings is actually scholarship, and propose a framework for documenting and assessing community-engaged scholarship for promotion and tenure decisions. They conclude with recommendations for change in academic health centers and health professions schools.
Academic Medicine 05/2005; 80(4):317-21. · 3.47 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.