Developing an Advocacy Curriculum: Lessons Learned from a National Survey of Psychiatric Residency Programs

Using Advocacy to Address the Crisis of Children's Mental Health

Children and youth in the United States are experiencing a mental health crisis that predates the COVID-19 pandemic. Child and adolescent psychiatrists have the knowledge and skillset to advocate for improving the pediatric mental health care system at the local, state, and federal levels. Child psychiatrists can use their knowledge and expertise to advocate legislatively or through regulatory advocacy to improve access to mental health care for youth. Further, including advocacy education in psychiatry and child psychiatry graduate medical education would help empower child psychiatrists to make an impact through their advocacy efforts.

How Are We Teaching Advocacy? A National Survey of Internal Medicine Residency Program Directors

BACKGROUND

Although internal medicine (IM) physicians accept public advocacy as a professional responsibility, there is little evidence that IM training programs teach advocacy skills. The prevalence and characteristics of public advocacy curricula in US IM residency programs are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the prevalence and characteristics of curricula in US IM residencies addressing public advocacy for communities and populations; to describe barriers to the provision of such curricula.

DESIGN

Nationally representative, web-based, cross-sectional survey of IM residency program directors with membership in an academic professional association.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 276 IM residency program directors (61%) responded between August and December 2022.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Percentage of US IM residency programs that teach advocacy curricula; characteristics of advocacy curricula; perceptions of barriers to teaching advocacy.

KEY RESULTS

More than half of respondents reported that their programs offer no advocacy curricula (148/276, 53.6%). Ninety-five programs (95/276, 34.4%) reported required advocacy curricula; 33 programs (33/276, 12%) provided curricula as elective only. The content, structure, and teaching methods of advocacy curricula in IM programs were heterogeneous; experiential learning in required curricula was low (23/95, 24.2%) compared to that in elective curricula (51/65, 78.5%). The most highly reported barriers to implementing or improving upon advocacy curricula (multiple responses allowed) were lack of faculty expertise in advocacy (200/276, 72%), inadequate faculty time (190/276, 69%), and limited curricular flexibility (148/276, 54%).

CONCLUSION

Over half of US IM residency programs offer no formal training in public advocacy skills and many reported lack of faculty expertise in public advocacy as a barrier. These findings suggest many IM residents are not taught how to advocate for communities and populations. Further, less than one-quarter of required curricula in public advocacy involves experiential learning.

Advocacy Curricula in Graduate Medical Education: an Updated Systematic Review from 2017 to 2022

BACKGROUND

Advocacy is an integral component of a physician's professional responsibilities, yet efforts to teach advocacy skills in a systematic and comprehensive manner have been inconsistent and challenging. There is currently no consensus on the tools and content that should be included in advocacy curricula for graduate medical trainees.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review of recently published GME advocacy curricula and delineate foundational concepts and topics in advocacy education that are pertinent to trainees across specialties and career paths.

METHODS

We conducted an updated systematic review based off Howell et al. (J Gen Intern Med 34(11):2592-2601, 2019) to identify articles published between September 2017 and March 2022 that described GME advocacy curricula developed in the USA and Canada. Searches of grey literature were used to find citations potentially missed by the search strategy. Articles were independently reviewed by two authors to identify those meeting our inclusion and exclusion criteria; a third author resolved discrepancies. Three reviewers used a web-based interface to extract curricular details from the final selection of articles. Two reviewers conducted a detailed analysis of recurring themes in curricular design and implementation.

RESULTS

Of 867 articles reviewed, 26 articles, describing 31 unique curricula, met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The majority (84%) represented Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, Pediatrics, and Psychiatry programs. The most common learning methods included experiential learning, didactics, and project-based work. Most covered community partnerships (58%) and legislative advocacy (58%) as advocacy tools and social determinants of health (58%) as an educational topic. Evaluation results were inconsistently reported. Analysis of recurring themes showed that advocacy curricula benefit from an overarching culture supportive of advocacy education and should ideally be learner-centric, educator-friendly, and action-oriented.

DISCUSSION

Combining core features of advocacy curricula identified in prior publications with our findings, we propose an integrative framework to guide design and implementation of advocacy curricula for GME trainees. Additional research is needed to build expert consensus and ultimately develop model curricula for disseminated use.

Striving for Equity in Community Mental Health: Opportunities and Challenges for Integrating Care for BIPOC Youth

Supporting the mental health of youth who identify as Black, Indigenous, or Persons of Color (BIPOC) continues to be a challenge for clinicians and policymakers alike. Children and adolescents are a vulnerable population, and for BIPOC youth, these vulnerabilities are magnified by the effects of structural, interpersonal, and internalized racism. Integration of psychiatric care into other medical settings has emerged as an evidence-based method to improve access to psychiatric care, but to bridge the gap experienced by BIPOC youth, care must extend beyond medical settings to other child-focused sectors, including local governments, education, child welfare, juvenile legal systems, and beyond. Intentional policy decisions are needed to incentivize and support these systems, which typically rely on coordination and collaboration between clinicians and other stakeholders. Clinicians must be trauma-informed and strive for structural competency to successfully navigate and advocate for collaborative systems that benefit BIPOC youth.