The entwined circles of quality improvement & advocacy.

Health policy and quality improvement initiatives exist symbiotically. Quality projects can be spurred by policy decisions, such as the creation of financial incentives for high-value care. Then, advocacy can streamline high-value care, offering opportunities for quality improvement scholars to create projects consistent with evidenced-based care. Thirdly, as pediatrics and neonatology reconcile with value-based payment structures, successful quality initiatives may serve as demonstration projects, illustrating to policy-makers how best to allocate and incentivize resources that optimize newborn health. And finally, quality improvement (QI) can provide an essential link between broad reaching advocacy principles and boots-on-the-ground local or regional efforts to implement good ideas in ways that work practically in particular environments. In this paper, we provide examples of how national legislation elevated the importance of QI, by penalizing hospitals for low quality care. Using Medicaid coverage of pasteurized human donor milk as an example, we discuss how advocacy improved cost-effectiveness of treatments used as tools for quality projects related to reduction of necrotizing enterocolitis and improved growth. We discuss how the future of QI work will assist in informing the agenda as neonatology transitions to value-based care. Finally, we consider how important local and regional QI work is in bringing good ideas to the bedside and the community.

Should Providers Advocate for Their Patients?

AbstractThis piece discusses several ways in which providers may advocate for patients and their families that go beyond what providers usually do to help their patients. A much more expanded view of advocacy is suggested. Real cases illustrating all interventions suggested are presented, and each is paradigmatic of numerous others. Categories of possible options suggested for expanded advocacy include (1) providers enhancing patients' outcomes when standard treatments have failed, (2) providers taking measures outside those they usually take to benefit patients to a greater extent, and (3) providers sacrificing their own needs more than they customarily do to help their patients still further. The suggested interventions are practical and can be implemented immediately. Taken together, the interventions proposed are also aspirational.

Advocacy and Bioethics: Aspiration, Obligation, and Negotiation.

AbstractA long-standing tenet of healthcare clinical ethics consultation has involved the neutrality of the ethicist. However, recent pressing societal issues have challenged this viewpoint. Perhaps now more than ever before, ethicists are being called upon to take up roles in public health, policy, and other community-oriented endeavors. In this article, I first review the concept of professional advocacy and contrast this conceptualization with the role of patient advocate, utilizing the profession of nursing as an exemplar. Then, I explore the status of advocacy in clinical ethics and how this conversation intersects with the existing professional obligations of the bioethicist, arguing that the goals of ethics consultation and ethical obligations of the clinical ethicist are compatible with the role of professional advocate. Finally, I explore potential barriers to professional advocacy and offer suggestions for a path forward.

Nothing about us without us: Advocacy and engagement in genetic medicine.

The development of new genetic medicines to treat sickle cell disease highlights the need for greater collaboration between researchers and people with lived experiences. Drawing on the adage "Nothing about us, without us," we call for increased investments in community advocacy and engagement.

Trainee advocacy for medical education on the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities: a sequential mixed methods analysis.

BACKGROUND: Medical trainees (medical students, residents, and fellows) are playing an active role in the development of new curricular initiatives; however, examinations of their advocacy efforts are rarely reported. The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of trainees advocating for improved medical education on the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. METHODS: In 2022-23, the authors conducted an explanatory, sequential, mixed methods study using a constructivist paradigm to analyze the experiences of trainee advocates. They used descriptive statistics to analyze quantitative data collected through surveys. Participant interviews then yielded qualitative data that they examined using team-based deductive and inductive thematic analysis. The authors applied Kern's six-step approach to curriculum development as a framework for analyzing and reporting results. RESULTS: A total of 24 participants completed the surveys, of whom 12 volunteered to be interviewed. Most survey participants were medical students who reported successful advocacy efforts despite administrative challenges. Several themes were identified that mapped to Steps 2, 4, and 5 of the Kern framework: "Utilizing Trainee Feedback" related to Needs Assessment of Targeted Learners (Kern Step 2); "Inclusion" related to Educational Strategies (Kern Step 4); and "Obstacles", "Catalysts", and "Sustainability" related to Curriculum Implementation (Kern Step 5). CONCLUSIONS: Trainee advocates are influencing the development and implementation of medical education related to the care of people with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities. Their successes are influenced by engaged mentors, patient partners, and receptive institutions and their experiences provide a novel insight into the process of trainee-driven curriculum advocacy.

The management of rare disease patients from a grassroot perspective: the role of patients' organizations in the global recognition of rare diseases in Cameroon.

Introduction: rare diseases (RD) are extremely complex health conditions. Persons affected by these conditions in Cameroon are often neglected in society and health systems through the inexistence of policies and programs. In Cameroon, there exists no program or policy conceived to address their needs in terms of access to quality health care, timely and reliable diagnosis, treatments, education, etc. The consequence is that persons living with a RD (PLWRD) and their families do not participate in social life. The unique fate of PLWRD reveals that the principle of social justice and equity is flawed in Cameroon. However, patients, in order to survive in society, rely on patients' organizations (PO) to improve their quality of life (QoL) and advocate for a better consideration in the society. The aim of this paper is to highlight how initiatives from a grassroot perspective like POs can inform decision-makers to address the needs of PLWRD and their families. Methods: the study associated a systematic literature review and semi-structured interviews with parents of children suffering from a RD and who are members of a PO. Through the systematic literature review we highlighted the impact POs have in the development of research on RDs, patient literacy, patient empowerment and advocacy while semi-structured interviews brought out the needs of patients and their families. Results: findings, on the one hand show that, in Cameroon PLWRD face a number of challenges like the incurability of their condition, catastrophic medical expenses, stigmatization and marginalization, etc. and though in POs their QoL still remains poor. On the other hand, where POs are empowered they are key actors in research on RDs and help decision-makers on having a better insight into the type of RD that exists across a geographical area, the sociodemographic profile of patients, etc. for a better management of PLWRD. Conclusion: the study suggests that the ministry of public health should create a network with existing RD POs to adequately meet the needs of PLWRD.

Perspectives of European Patient Advocacy Groups on Volunteer Registries and Vaccine Trials: VACCELERATE Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The VACCELERATE Pan-European Scientific network aims to strengthen the foundation of vaccine trial research across Europe by following the principles of equity, inclusion, and diversity. The VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry network provides access to vaccine trial sites across the European region and supports a sustainable volunteer platform for identifying potential participants for forthcoming vaccine clinical research. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to approach members of patient advocacy groups (PAGs) across Europe to assess their willingness to register for the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry and their perspectives related to participating in vaccine trials. METHODS: In an effort to understand how to increase recruitment for the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry, a standardized survey was developed in English and translated into 8 different languages (Dutch, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Spanish, and Swedish) by the respective National Coordinator team. The online, anonymous survey was circulated, from March 2022 to May 2022, to PAGs across 10 European countries (Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Spain, and Sweden) to share with their members. The questionnaire constituted of multiple choice and open-ended questions evaluating information regarding participants' perceptions on participating in vaccine trials and their willingness to become involved in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry. RESULTS: In total, 520 responses were collected and analyzed. The PAG members reported that the principal criteria influencing their decision to participate in clinical trials overall are (1) the risks involved, (2) the benefits that will be gained from their potential participation, and (3) the quality and quantity of information provided regarding the trial. The survey revealed that, out of the 520 respondents, 133 individuals across all age groups were "positive" toward registering in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry, with an additional 47 individuals reporting being "very positive." Respondents from Northern European countries were 1.725 (95% CI 1.206-2.468) times more likely to be willing to participate in the VACCELERATE Volunteer Registry than respondents from Southern European countries. CONCLUSIONS: Factors discouraging participants from joining vaccine trial registries or clinical trials primarily include concerns of the safety of novel vaccines and a lack of trust in those involved in vaccine development. These outcomes aid in identifying issues and setbacks in present registries, providing the VACCELERATE network with feedback on how to potentially increase participation and enrollment in trials across Europe. Development of European health communication strategies among diverse public communities, especially via PAGs, is the key for increasing patients' willingness to participate in clinical studies.

'They don't think I can do it': Experiences of self-advocates, employment specialists, and employers on employment of adults with intellectual disability.

BACKGROUND: A multi-phase Canadian study was conducted as part of a large-scale community and academic research partnership focused on understanding and improving the employment experiences of people with intellectual disabilities. METHOD: This multi-method study utilized a sequential approach, using findings from qualitative interviews (n = 28) to inform an online survey (n = 149). Participants were invited to share their experiences with paid employment or with persons with intellectual disabilities. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of data across interview and survey findings resulted in six themes: (1) assumptions and attitudes, (2) knowledge and awareness, (3) accessibility of processes, (4) use of accommodations, (5) workplace relationships, and (6) supports and resources. CONCLUSIONS: A holistic and systemic approach has the potential to improve inclusive employment experiences of people with intellectual disabilities. Action is needed mainly at the policy and employer level to reduce barriers and improve on facilitating measures reinforced by the themes shared in this study.

Medical Advocacy among Latina Women Diagnosed with Breast Cancer.

Medical advocacy has continued to significantly impact quality of life and survivorship outcomes among Latina breast cancer survivors in the United States. However, little is known about the unique experiences of Latina survivors, including the perceived value, process, and context in which they practice medical advocacy. To help address this gap, we conducted a qualitative, secondary analysis of semi-structured focus groups with 18 Latina breast cancer survivors from Chicago, Illinois. Eligible women had to self-identify as (1) female, (2) Latina, (3) 18 years or older, and (4) having a breast cancer diagnosis 5 years ago or more. In total, 61% of participants were 50-59 years old, 83% were born in Mexico, and 100% spoke Spanish. The three emergent themes from the focus groups were (1) the cultural need for Latina advocates and support groups; (2) the process and experiences of becoming a community advocate within Latine culture; and (3) the cultural contexts for advocacy by Latina breast cancer survivors. Latina survivor advocates share strengths of receiving ongoing health education, peer support, and access to resources when being linked to a support group furthering their exposure to role models, increasing their awareness of opportunities in medical advocacy, and providing an entry to participate in medical advocacy.

Community health worker perspectives on advocacy: design-based research to develop a digital advocacy training course.

Introduction: While community health workers (CHWs) are well-positioned as health advocates, they frequently lack support and feel undervalued. Advocacy training may prepare CHWs to support communities better. Methods: This study uses a design-based research approach to (1) explore how participation in curriculum-development workshops for a digital advocacy course influenced CHWs' (n = 25) perceptions of advocacy and (2) describe how CHW involvement shaped course development. Data were collected via five discussion groups and seven surveys over six months. Results: Initially, the CHWs perceived themselves as community-advocates but not as self-advocates. They increasingly reflected on the merits of advocating for better working conditions and aspired to greater involvement in decision-making. CHWs reflected positively on their advisory role in shaping the course to improve content acceptability and validity. Discussion: Training efforts to engage CHWs in advocacy must overcome systemic barriers and norms internalized by CHWs that deter them from reaching their full potential as advocates.

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

BACKGROUND: Medical 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: Over 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). CONCLUSION: Physician 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.

Misunderstood and underappreciated: a critical review of mental health advocacy and activism in low- and middle-income countries.

Mental health advocacy and activism have been highlighted as important in the effort towards creating environments for better mental health. However, relevant research in low- and middle-income country settings remains limited and lacks critical exploration. We seek to contribute to filling this gap by exploring driving factors behind mental health advocacy and activism efforts in low- and middle-income country settings. This review uses a critically informed thematic analysis employing conceptual frameworks of productive power to analyse peer-reviewed articles on mental health advocacy or activism over the last 20 years. We suggest that the current body of research is marred by superficial explorations of activism and advocacy, partly due to a lack of cohesion around definitions. Based on our findings, we suggest a conceptual framework to guide deeper explorations of mental health advocacy and activism. This framework identifies 'legitimacy', 'context' and 'timing' as the main dimensions to consider in understanding activism and advocacy efforts. The fact that they remain misunderstood and underappreciated creates missed opportunities for meaningful inclusion of lived experience in policy decisions and limits our understanding of how communities envision and enact change.

The TTP specialist nurse: an advocate for patients and professionals.

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a rare and life-threatening blood disorder with a mortality rate of over 90% if left untreated, multiple long-term complications for survivors, and a lifelong risk of relapse. There is a valuable role for the clinical nurse specialist in both the acute and long-term care of patients with TTP. Historically part of the team caring for patients with TTP, specialist nurses have played a vital role in co-ordinating and facilitating treatment for patients, promoting patient advocacy, supporting continuous service improvement, and delivering education to the wider clinical team to disseminate best practice. In 2021, the TTP specialist nurse role was commissioned within the NHS England National Service Framework for TTP Specialist Centres. This article aims to appraise the role of the TTP specialist nurse and share the multidimensional reach of the role in achieving better outcomes for patients with TTP.

Barriers and advocacy needs for hepatitis C services in prisons: Informing the prisons hepatitis C advocacy toolkit.

BACKGROUND: Carceral settings are a key focus of the 2030 WHO global hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination goals. Despite this, access to HCV testing and treatment services in prisons remains low globally, limiting opportunities to achieve these goals. Advocacy efforts are needed to address service inequities and mobilise support for enhanced HCV programs in prisons globally. INHSU Prisons, a special interest group of the International Network on Health and Hepatitis in Substance Users (INHSU) is developing a Prisons HCV Advocacy Toolkit to address this need. Here we present findings of a mixed study to inform the development of the Toolkit. METHODS: The aim of this study was to inform the development of the Toolkit, including understanding barriers for scaling up prison-based HCV services globally and advocacy needs to address these. An online survey (n = 181) and in-depth interviews (n = 25) were conducted with key stakeholders from countries of different economic status globally. Quantitative data were statistically analysed using R Studio and qualitative data were analysed thematically. The data sets were merged using a convergent design. RESULTS: Key barriers for enhanced prison-based HCV services included lack of political will and action, lack of prison-based healthcare resources, and poor awareness about HCV and the importance of prison-based HCV services. These findings underscore how advocacy efforts are needed to motivate policymakers to prioritise HCV healthcare in prisons and ensure funds are available for services (including diagnostic tools and treatment, healthcare teams to implement services, and systems to measure their success). Advocacy resources to raise the awareness of policy makers, people working in the prison sector, and incarcerated populations were also identified as key to increasing HCV service uptake. CONCLUSION: The Toolkit has the potential to support advocacy efforts for reaching HCV elimination targets. By understanding the advocacy needs of potential Toolkit end-users, the findings can inform its development and increase its accessibility, acceptability, and uptake for a globally diverse audience.

Advocacy Connection Team-Now educational program for headache fellows and patients/caregivers: Assessment of educational objectives.

OBJECTIVE: To assess for improvement in comfort in participating in advocacy for migraine and headache disorders and knowledge needed for successful advocacy. BACKGROUND: The Advocacy Connection Team (ACT)-Now program is an educational program offered through Miles for Migraine, a non-profit advocacy organization. It is designed to teach headache fellows and patients advocacy skills. METHODS: In a cross-sectional pre-test-post-test design, the 2021 ACT-Now cohort of 98 participants were administered a set of 11 pre-course survey questions identifying their role (healthcare provider/headache fellow or patient/caregiver), baseline knowledge of migraine-related disability and stigma, and baseline engagement and comfort with advocating. The post-course survey questions were the same as the pre-course questions, with the addition of one question assessing knowledge of migraine-related disability, additional questions addressing comfort levels advocating with insurance and policymakers, as well as creating an advocacy plan. RESULTS: For the pre-course survey, 69 participants responded and for the post-course survey, 40 participants responded. Compared to the pre-course survey, participants were able to correctly identify epidemiological data about migraine following the ACT-Now course (pre-course 46% correct, post-course 58% correct, p = 0.263). There was also an increase in the comfort level of participants in advocacy activities, including the creation of an advocacy action plan (pre-course 23% were "very comfortable" advocating, post-course 63%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that ACT-Now is effective at improving advocacy skills in a mixed cohort of patients and headache fellows, giving them the skills to create advocacy plans and engage with other patients and physicians, payers, and policymakers to create a more understanding, equitable and compassionate world for persons with migraine and other headache diseases.