Skip to main content
. 2023 Jun 20;38(12):2792–2807. doi: 10.1007/s11606-023-08244-x

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics of Included Advocacy Curricula

n (%, with total n = 31)*
Country
  USA 30 (97%)
  Canada 1 (3%)
Specialty (some curricula included > 1 specialty)
  Internal medicine 6 (19%)
  Family medicine 5 (16%)
  Pediatrics 9 (29%)
  Psychiatry 10 (32%)
  Other specialty 5 (16%)
Teaching methods
  Experiential learning 19 (61%)
  Small group discussion/seminar 15 (48%)
  Lecture 20 (65%)
  Independent project 6 (19%)
  Group project 7 (23%)
  Required reading 8 (26%)
Advocacy tools
  Legislative advocacy 18 (58%)
  Community partnership/organizing 18 (58%)
  Advocacy writing (op-ed, testimony, etc.) 13 (42%)
  Public speaking 3 (10%)
  Research-based advocacy 5 (16%)
  Media relations 4 (13%)
Advocacy/policy content areas
  Social determinants of health 18 (58%)
  Health equity / racial justice 11 (35%)
  Healthcare finance 3 (10%)
  Quality improvement 3 (10%)
  Major health legislation (e.g., ACA) 4 (13%)
  Structural competency 4 (13%)
  Global health 4 (13%)
Evaluation
  Evaluation reported 21 (68%)
  Content: trainee feedback/perceptions 21 (68%)
  Content: trainee knowledge/skills/attitudes 14 (45%)
  Survey 15 (48%)
  Written feedback 3 (10%)
  Focus group 4 (13%)
  Interviews 4 (13%)
  Stakeholder feedback 5 (16%)
  Participant outcomes 4 (13%)

*n = 31 represents 31 overall curricula, extracted from 26 articles, with Vance (2020) and Kennedy (2018)—two articles that described the same 7 psychiatry advocacy curricula—counted as a total of 7 curricula

Canadian article is Ying (2019)

Psychiatry total includes 7 curricula from Vance/Kennedy and 3 separate curricula from other articles