HEALTH AND SAFETY

» Drug, Devices, and Supplements

» Physician Accountability

» Consumer Product Safety

» Worker Safety

» Health Care Delivery

» Auto and Truck Safety

» Global Access to Medicines

» Infant Formula Marketing

 

Description of a Research-Based Health Activism Curriculum for Medical Students

December 2006

Cha SS, Ross JS, Lurie P, Sacajiu G. Description of a Research-Based Health Activism Curriculum for Medical Students. Journal of General Internal Medicine Dec 2006; 21:12 1325.
The def
initive version is available at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com

Stephen S. Cha, M.D., MHS
VA Connecticut Healthcare System
West Haven, CT, USA;
Department of Internal Medicine
Yale University
New Haven, CT, USA

Joseph S. Ross, M.D., MHS
Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Adult Development
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
New York, NY, USA;
Geriatrics Research, Education, and Clinical Center
James J. Peters Veterans Administration Medical Center
Bronx, NY, USA

Peter Lurie, M.D., M.P.H.
Public Citizen's Health Research Group
Washington, DC, USA

Galit Sacajiu, M.D,. M.P.H.
Department of Internal Medicine
Montefiore Medical Center
Bronx, NY, USA

INTRODUCTION: Few curricula train medical students to engage in health system reform.
AIM: To develop physician activists by teaching medical students the skills necessary to advocate for socially equitable health policies in the U.S. health system.
SETTING: Montefiore Medical Center, the University Hospital of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: We designed a 1-month curriculum in research-based health activism to develop physician activists. The annual curriculum includes a student project and 4 course sections; health policy, research methods, advocacy, and physician activists as role models; taught by core faculty and volunteers from academic institutions, government, and nongovernmental organizations.
PROGRAM EVALUATION: From 2002 to 2005, 47 students from across the country have participated. Students reported improved capabilities to generate a research question, design a research proposal, and create an advocacy plan.
DISCUSSION: Our curriculum demonstrates a model for training physician activists to engage in health systems reform.

 

INTRODUCTION

Many have called for a renewal of medical professionalism, raising 2 essential themes.[1-9] First, physicians must work as patient-centered advocates for each individual, acting ethically and avoiding conflicts of interest to preserve trust in the doctor-patient relationship.[1-9] Second, physicians should engage in advocacy to improve health care systems to address unmet societal needs.[1-9] In a recent joint statement, the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American College of Physicians, and the European Federation of Internal Medicine defined professionalism using the principles of social justice, patient welfare, and patient autonomy, calling on physicians to be "activist in reforming health care systems."[2]

Statements and editorials alone cannot change behavior: educational changes are also essential to renew professionalism.[1,3,4,10-14] However, few sustainable curricula exist to train physicians to engage in health care reform.[10,12] Even curricula that teach health policy tend to describe the mechanics of our system,[10,13] not the process of changing systems. Research-based health activism is a comprehensive approach to address healthcare system-level problems, using objective data to evaluate solutions and then pursuing change through advocacy.[15]

AIM

Our goal was to develop a curriculum to teach medical students the research and advocacy skills necessary to pursue socially equitable health policies in the U.S. healthcare system.

SETTING

We designed and evaluated a research-based health activism curriculum at Montefiore Medical Center, the University Hospital of Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY. Although most sessions took place at Montefiore, students also made site visits to advocacy organizations and other institutions (e.g., Gay Men's Health Crisis, New York Academy of Medicine).

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

This curriculum was conceived in 2002 by residents from Montefiore postgraduate training programs (S.S.C., J.S.R.) in collaboration with faculty sponsorship (G.S.) as a 1-month elective for medical students in their clinical years. In addition, we were assisted by Public Citizen's Health Research Group (P.L.), a nonprofit consumer-advocacy organization in Washington, DC, and drew from other advocacy curricula, primarily lecture-based courses over a semester or year.16,17 Administrative and material support was provided by Department of Family and Social Medicine at Montefiore Medical Center and additional material support was provided by the Soros Foundation.

We offer the curriculum each October when many fourth-year students are making career decisions. Structured curricular hours are intensive, totaling over 100 hours. Additional independent time is spent on project development. Students are given no other duties for the month. We recruit students from across the country using a variety of methods: mailings to every medical school, organizational listserv emails, and word of mouth. To apply, students list prior advocacy or research experience, home institution mentors, and community contacts. No students have been refused thus far.

Curricular objectives are for students to: (1) generate an appropriate research question; (2) design, write and present a research proposal; (3) develop, write and present an advocacy plan; and (4) identify career development resources.

We deliver course content in 4 sections: (1) health policy, (2) research methodology, (3) advocacy skills, and (4) physician activists as role models (Appendix A). We developed 6 to 10 sessions to cover appropriate content within each section, each 90 minutes to a half-day in length.

Session facilitators were recruited from multiple institutions and disciplines, including nonprofit advocacy organizations, state and federal government, academic institutions, and journalism. Nearly all facilitators, primarily from the New York City area, volunteer their time and expertise (Appendix A).

The core Montefiore faculty ask facilitators to cover specific content areas and to encourage interactivity in the sessions. Facilitators then collaborate with core faculty to ensure that each session meets its objective and fits appropriately within the context of the curriculum. Knowledge-based sessions utilize methods such as small group discussions, background readings, and homework, while skills-based sessions include role-play, workshops, and videotape review.

The 4 Course Sections

The objective of the "Health Policy" section is to provide students with the knowledge needed to develop appropriate research questions. Topics include the organization of the U.S. health care system, the role of the federal government in health care, the history of insurance, and the health impact of social capital, income, and race. Teaching methods include readings, interactive lectures and small group discussions.

The objective of the "Research Methods" section is to teach students the basic clinical research methods necessary to design a project. Topics include developing a research question, study designs, data management and analysis, and research ethics. Methods include readings, homework exercises, interactive lectures, and small group workshops to discuss student projects.

The objective of the "Advocacy" section is to teach students the concepts and techniques of activism. Given the dearth of such expertise within academic medicine, most facilitators hail from outside medicine, including the Midwest Academy, one of the nation's oldest schools for community activists18; Gay Men's Health Crisis, a New York City advocacy group; a New York Times health reporter; and Soros Foundation program officers. Topics include issue-based campaigning, coalition building, media relations, and public speaking. Methods include role-playing a cancer screening advocacy campaign, a public-speaking videotape workshop, and small group discussions.

Finally, the objective of the "Physician Activists as Role Models" section is to introduce students to physician activists as role models for their own careers. The section features intensive discussions with physician activists in the New York City area, providing an opportunity for students to discuss their own career goals.

The Student Project

The curriculum is anchored by a 2 part experiential student project: a research proposal and advocacy plan, each approximately 5 pages in length, weaving together the goals and themes of all course sections around 1 topic of student interest (Appendix B). For the research proposal, students formulate a concise research question, develop a study design, and describe methods for acquiring and analyzing the data. For the advocacy plan, students describe why they chose their issue, develop project goals, and create a strategy plan, including possible coalitions, resources, and tactics. These research proposals and advocacy plans are extensively revised with feedback from core faculty, mentors at students' home institutions, and peer classmates, and are facilitated through multiple group sessions and independent project time. Mentors are expected to assist students in completing the proposed project after the intensive month is over. We expect that students need 1 to 2 years after the course to complete their projects.

At the end of the course, these proposals are presented in both oral and written form to faculty who provide feedback. All session facilitators and adjunct faculty are invited to this capstone presentation of the students' work.

Program EVALUATION

Methods

The curriculum is evaluated using surveys that include Likert-scales, multiple choice, and open-ended questions (Appendix C). Participants in 2003 and 2005 completed pre- and postcourse surveys assessing curriculum expectations, session objectives, instructor quality, success at meeting educational objectives, and career goals. The main educational objectives from pre- and postcourse surveys were self-assessed ability to generate a research question, design a research proposal, and create an advocacy plan. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 11.5 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Pre- to postcurriculum trends were examined with paired analysis using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. All statistical tests were 2-tailed.

Results

Over the 2002 to 2005 period, 47 students enrolled from medical schools representing all regions of the country, 32 (68%) from outside the New York City region. Sixty-six percent were female, 49% identified as nonwhite, and 81% intended to begin training in a primary care specialty after medical school. Ninety-four percent were in their fourth year of medical school.

All 26 students in 2003 and 2005 completed pre- and postcourse surveys. All 26 students "agreed" or "strongly agreed" in postcourse surveys that the curriculum taught them how to generate a research question, design a research proposal, and create an advocacy plan. Significantly more students intended to pursue careers that "significantly" involved research after compared with before the curriculum (42% vs 12%, respectively, P=.004; none indicated "exclusively"). More than half the students intended to pursue careers that "significantly" involved advocacy before the curriculum, and this did not change after the curriculum (54% vs 62%, respectively, P=.56) (Table 1). Students' opinions about the state of medicine did not change, except that students were more likely to agree that physicians will not receive the same respect by society in the future as in the past and less likely to agree that the demands of a physician's work interfere too much with other interests and pursuits.

All students in all 4 years completed a research proposal; some students worked in collaboration with one another for a total of 43 projects (Table 2). Student topics included: designing a hunger assessment tool for community-based clinical practice; assessing and intervening to reduce waiting times at a public hospital pharmacy; and examining the disease progression of incarcerated people with HIV after release. Of the 43 student projects, 35% were completed, 16% are in progress, and another 21% are in progress but have been modified from their original proposal. Sixteen percent of the projects were never completed, and we were unable to ascertain the status of 12%.

Overall, open-ended assessments were positive and enthusiastic. Examples of comments include, "The best course I have had in medical school," "Thank you for putting this course together," "This was the best month of my medical school career," and "Enlightening, inspiring, and rejuvenating." Five session were identified as most valuable: Federal Government and Health Care, U.S. and Universal Coverage, Organizing and Strategy Building, Advocating for Choice, and Coalition Building (Appendix C, items 2, 3, and 4 list the 31 sessions).

Table 1. Students' expectations about career activities and opinions on the state of medicine (n=26)*

Items

Precourse

Postcourse

P value

Expect to be involved in research

2.04

2.42

<.01

Expect to be involved in advocacy

2.54

2.62

.56

Medicine will not be as financially rewarding in the future as in the past

2.23

2.31

.56

Physicians will not receive the same respect from society in the future as they have in the past

3.19

3.62

.04

Changes in the health care system are impairing physician independence

2.12

2.15

.74

The administrative requirements of the health care financing system are too burdensome on physicians

2.23

2.08

.16

Physicians' legal liabilities and the high cost of malpractice insurance are major problems

2.08

2.27

.32

The demands of a physician's work interfere too much with family relations

3.08

2.81

.22

The demands of a physician's work interfere too much with other interests and pursuits

3.19

2.73

.02

Specialists are less important than primary care physicians

3.62

3.54

.72

Physicians who work hard will always be able to build a successful practice

2.77

2.58

.27

Having interesting and intelligent colleagues is a major benefit of being a physician

1.88

1.58

.18

Access to medical care continues to be a major problem in the United States

1.12

1.08

.66

Everyone is entitled to receive adequate medical care regardless of his or her ability to pay

1.12

1.04

.32

Physicians have an opportunity to exercise greater influence on health promotion and disease prevention

1.19

1.08

.18

Advances in the biomedical sciences and their application to the care of patients will make the practice of medicine more challenging and rewarding in the future

2.23

2.27

.96

Cure of disease is the most important purpose of medicine

3.73

3.85

.43

Relief of patient suffering is the most important pursuit of medicine

2.31

1.92

.11

*2003 data not collected.
†  Ratings for the 2 expectation items were 1,"Limited Involvement"; 2,"Somewhat Involved"; 3,"Significantly Involved"; 4,"Exclusively Involved." Ratings for all other items were based on a 5-point Likert scale: 1, Strongly Agree; 2, Agree; 3, No Opinion, 4, Disagree, 5, Strongly Disagree.

 

Table 2. Current status of student research projects (n=43)

Status

Number of projects (%)

Project completed

15 (35)

Project in progress

7 (16)

Project changed significantly

9 (21)

Project not completed

7 (16)

Unknown status

5 (12)

 

DISCUSSION

The Montefiore curriculum in research-based health activism represents a multidisciplinary model for developing physician activists and remains successful despite the departure of 2 of the original core faculty. Students agreed that we successfully met our main objective of teaching the skills of research-based health activism.

Prior advocacy courses were primarily lecture-based and often consisted of a series of weekly lectures from activists over the course of a semester or year. The Montefiore curriculum expanded on existing health activism courses by recruiting students from across the country for 1 intensive month, recruiting a faculty from a wide range of disciplines, and including an explicit focus on career development. Finally, the student project unified over 100 hours of diverse curriculum through active learning.

Over the 4 times this curriculum has been offered, it is clear that enthusiastic students are most responsible for its sustained success. However, by providing a varied curriculum to satisfy diverse interests, assigning a core faculty mentor to each student, recruiting an epidemiologist to make herself available to students, and by expanding the experiential hands-on workshops, we have been able to make incremental improvements. Students are currently enrolling for the 2006 course.

Our preliminary evaluation of this curriculum is limited by the paucity of existing evaluation models for focused research and advocacy curricula and formal evaluations only being done in 2003 and 2005. We have since revised our pre- and postcourse surveys, attempting to measure course objectives, student satisfaction, and opportunities for improvement. Future iterations of our evaluation will systematically obtain information on students to document career intentions and advocacy efforts following departure from the course.

The social culture of the course was critical to our efforts, anchored by collaborators from a wide range of disciplines, ongoing social events with students and faculty, and mutual support among a committed group of students. Students leave this course not only excited about their potential as physician activists, but also with a cohort of colleagues who share that enthusiasm. Unfortunately, our students return to the culture of medicine at large, noted to be an atmosphere often not supportive of activism.[1,19,20] Students need support to preserve their enthusiasm for being physician activists. Initial efforts should include dissemination and expansion of curricular efforts in health activism. As Jordan Cohen, president of the American Association of Medical Colleges, said recently, our future physicians should be "the best, the brightest, and the most idealistic and public-spirited of young people."[21] Our curriculum provides an example of a successful model to focus the idealism of these young physicians-in-training toward health systems reform.

Thanks to all the students, residents and faculty who have generously volunteered their time and effort to organize, facilitate and improve the curriculum over the years, particularly the past and present resident course leaders: Joseph Asbury, Carolyn Chu, Aaron Fox, Sheira Schlair, Noga Shalev, and Mindy Sobota. Special thanks to the Department of Family and Social Medicine at Montefiore Medical Center, the faculty and co-residents in Montefiore's Social Medicine-Internal Medicine and Primary Care-Internal Medicine training programs, and especially to our course administrator Zenaida Izquierdo.

Primary Funding Source: We received financial support from the Soros Foundation through an educational grant from Public Citizen. Dr. Cha was a scholar in the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program at Yale University and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs and Dr. Ross was a scholar in the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program at Yale University and sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation during their project involvement. Neither the Soros Foundation nor the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation had any role in the design or conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis or interpretation of the data; or preparation, review or approval of the manuscript.

Address correspondence and requests for reprints to Dr. Cha: Committee on Government Reform, United States House of Representatives, 511 Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515 (e-mail: stephen.cha@yale.edu). Dr. Cha's contact information is provided for correspondence purposes only; his contribution to the cohort is based on work prior to joining the Committee on Government Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives.

No conflicts of interest to declare.

This work was presented as a poster at the 2004 National Society of General Internal Medicine Meeting and as a workshop and poster at the 2003 National Society of General Internal Medicine Meeting.

REFERENCES

1. Rothman D. Medical professionalism-focusing on the real issues. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1284-6.
2. Medical Professionalism Project. Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physician charter. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:243-6.
3. Medical School Objectives Writing Group. Learning objectives for medical student education-guidelines for medical schools: report I of the medical school objectives project. Acad Med. 1999;74:13-8.
4. The ACGME Outcome Project. http://www.acgme.org/outcome/project/proHome.asp. Accessed April 20, 2005.
5. Gruen RL, Pearson SD, Brennan TA. Physician-citizens-public roles and professional obligations. JAMA. 2004;291:94-8.
6. Flynn MB. Power, professionalism, and patient advocacy. Am J Surg. 1995;170:407-9.
7. Wynia MK, Latham SR, Kao AC, Berg JW, Emanuel LL. Medical professionalism in society. N Engl J Med. 1612;341:1612-6.
8. Sullivan WM. What is left of professionalism after managed care? Hastings Cent Rep. 1999;29:7-13.
9. Mechanic D. Managed care and the imperative for a new professional ethic. Health Affairs. 2000;19:100-11.
10. Whitcomb ME. Future doctors should learn about our country's health care system. Acad Med. 2004;79:105-6.
11. Coulehan J, Williams PC, Van McCrary S, Belling C. The best lack all conviction: biomedical ethics, professionalism, and social responsibility. Camb Quart Healthcare Ethics. 2003;12:21-38.
12. Swick HM, Szenas P, Danoff D, Whitcomb ME. Teaching professionalism in undergraduate medical education. JAMA. 1999;282:830-2.
13. Finkel ML, Fein O. Teaching about the changing U.S. health care system: an innovative clerkship. Acad Med. 2004;79:179-82.
14. Curricula CoBaSSiMS, Medicine Io. Improving Medical Education: Enhancing the Behavioral and Social Science Content of Medical School Curricula. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004.
15. Tepper O, Lurie P, Wolfe S. Courses in research-based health activism. Virtual Mentor, Ethics Resource Center, American Medical Association. January 2004; 6(1) http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/11778.html. Accessed August 15, 2006.
16. http://www.citizen.org/activistcourses. Accessed March 3, 2006.
17. Association AMS. The Paul Ambrose Political Leadership Institute. http://www.amsa.org/hp/hpli.cfm. Now available at: http://web.archive.org/web/20060213204440/http://www.amsa.org/hp/hpli.cfm. Accessed April 5, 2006.
18. Bobo KA, Kendall J, Max S. Organizing for Social Change: Midwest Academy Manual for Activists. 3rd edition. Washington, DC: Seven Locks Press; 2001.
19. Ludmerer KM. Instilling professionalism in medical education. JAMA. 1999;282:881-2.
20. Hafferty FW, Franks R. The hidden curriculum, ethics teaching, and the structure of medical education. Acad Med. 1994;69:861-71.
21. Cohen JJ. Our compact with tomorrow's doctors. Paper presented at Association of American Medical Colleges, 112th Annual Meeting, November 4, 2001. Washington, DC.

Appendix A

Sample schedule and facilitators for the curriculum. 

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

 

9-12: Welcome

12-1: Lunch

1-2:30: RM: What is the research question?

3-4:30: PRM: Research-based health activism: case examples

4:30-6: RM: Research Topics/Questions

9-10:30: RM: Introduction to Epidemiology and Health Policy

11-12:30: A: Picking an Issue

9-10:30: Site visit: Mount Sinai: Medicare policy

11-12:30: RM: Study Design

2-4: Site visit: Wagner/NYU School of Public Policy: Federal health policy

9-10:30: HP: History & Development of US Health Care System

11-12:30: A: Choosing an Issue

12:30-1:30: Brown Bag: Project Development

9-10:30: HP: Medicare, Medicaid, and Insurance Corporations 

11-12:30: RM: Questionnaire Design/ Acquiring Data

1-2:30: Brown Bag: Project Development

3-4:30: RM: Research Ethics

9-10:30: HP: Pharmaceutical Industry and Medicine

11-12:30: RM: Data Mapping

12:30-1:30: SE: Income and Health

Project Time

9-10:30: PRM: Substance Abuse and Health

11-12:30: A: Media Relations Workshop

12:15-1:30: Community Medicine Journal Club

9-12:30: A: Intro to Organizing and Strategy Building, parts 1&2

9-10:30: RM: Proposal Writing

11-12:30: PRM: War, Nuclear Arms, and Public Health

12:30-1:30: Brown Bag: Project Development

2-3:30: PRM: Health Policy and Advocacy on the Local, State and National Levels

9-10:30: RM: Sample Size and Power

11-12:30: RM: Data Analysis

12:30-1:30: SE: Social Capital & Support and Health

7-9:30:   Site Visit: Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) Meeting: Student Activism, then and now

Project Time

9-10:30: HP: How Healthcare Is Organized

11-12:30: PRM: Research and Advocacy and the Dawn of AIDS

12:30-1:30: Brown Bag: Project Development

2-4: PRM: Making Real World Change as a Physician

9-10:30: RM: Data Management

11-2:30: A: Public Speaking Workshop and Video Role Play

3-4:30: HP: Women’s Health

9-10:30: A/PRM: Lobbying

11-12:30: PRM: Health and Human Rights

12:30-1:30: Site visit:   Human Rights Clinic

2-3: Brown Bag: Project Development

9-10:30: HP: US and Universal Health Coverage

11-12:30: Site Visit: Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC):   Coalition building

12:30-1:30: SE: Working Conditions & Employment Status and Health

Project Time

9-11: Feedback and Survey Distribution

11-12:30: SE: Health and Social Policy

8:00-9:15: Grand rounds: Research based health activism

9-2: Project Presentations

Research-Based Health Activism Facilitators (italics indicates participation more than one year)

Matthew Anderson, M.D., MSc; David Appel, M.D.; Joseph Asbury, M.D.; Ramin Asgary, M.D., M.P.H., MSc; Ricardo Barreras, Ph.D.; Bertrand Bell, M.D.; Jo Ivey Boufford, M.D.; Claudia Calhoon, M.P.H.; Laura Caruso, M.P.A.; Stephen Cha, M.D.; Carolyn Chu, M.D.; Chinazo Cunningham, M.D.; Ernie Drucker, Ph.D.; Oliver Fein, M.D.; Robin Flam, M.D., Ph.D.; Aaron Fox, M.D.; Bob Goodman, M.D.; Dahlia Heller, M.P.H.; David Herszenson, M.D.; Paul Jung, M.D.; Alison Karasz, Ph.D.; Mikhail Kogan, M.D.; Atsuko Koyama, M.D.; Hillary Kunins, M.D., M.P.H.; Sharon Lerner, M.P.H.; Ann Lindsay, M.D.; Paul Lipson; Peter Lurie, M.D., M.P.H.; Ruth Macklin, Ph.D.; Steve Max; Kate McCoy, Ph.D.; Paul Meissner, MSPH; Eva Metalios, M.D.; Susan Moscou, N.P.; Denis Nash, Ph.D.; Irwin Redlener, M.D.; Adam Richards, M.D., M.P.H.; Joseph Ross, M.D.; Galit Sacajiu, M.D., M.P.H.; Barbara Seaman; Peter Selwyn, M.D, MPH;  Sheira Schlair, MD; Noga Shalev, MD; Mindy Sobota, MD; Victor Sidel, MD; Lanny Smith, MD, MPH, DTM&H; Nancy Sohler, PhD; Hal Strelnick, MD; Leonora Tiefer, PhD; Bruce Vladeck, PhD; Judy Wessler, MA; Sidney Wolfe, MD

RM indicates Research Methods; A indicates Advocacy; HP indicates Health Policy; PRM indicates Physician Activists as Role Models; and SE indicates Social Epidemiology

Appendix B.

Student projects and status, by year

Project title

Mentor  

 

Status

 

2002

Culturally determined health beliefs affecting mammograms in urban African-American women over the age of 50

Unknown

Did not complete

End of life care education in the clinical years

Yes

Complete

Barriers to obtaining prescription drugs faced by outpatients at an urban public hospital

Yes

Complete

Barriers to making residential environmental changes: surveying parents of children with asthma

Yes

Changed, in progress

Relationship of health insurance status with mortality and cardiac catheterization referral rates following myocardial infarction

Yes

Complete

2003

Housing instability and barriers to medical care among individuals with HIV living at single room occupancy hotels

Yes

Complete

Causes of death in homeless adults in selected U.S cities

Yes

Did not complete

Market share of pharmaceuticals before and after losing patent protection

Yes

Complete

Disease progression after incarceration among HIV+ women

Yes

Complete

Health outcomes in Latino patients with diabetes participating in health education.

Yes

In progress

The influence of a course on physician activism on the specialty selection

No

Complete

 

Safety net providers in Cleveland, OH

Yes

Unknown

Family planning visits and purchase of birth control method in uninsured women

Yes

Did not complete

Sexual practices and condom use in a Cleveland city bathhouse

Yes

Did not complete

Implementation of a food-security screen in a pediatric clinic

Yes

Complete

Substance use patterns, participation in drug treatment programs and adherence to therapy in a cohort of HIV+ patients in Boston

Yes

Complete

Patient assistance programs for prescription medications in Galveston, TX 

Yes

Unknown

2004

Language barriers in Bronx emergency rooms

No

Unknown

Asthma trends and the environment survey

Yes

Complete

Health effects of local ambient particulate air quality from a known point source

No

Unknown

Improving prisoner access to health care

Unknown

Unknown

Mobilizing African-American women to improve their health:   exploring the potential of African-American cosmetologists as agents for health education and promotion

Yes

Unknown

Medical students and their ability to counsel on weight-loss strategies

Yes

In progress

Interventions to increase exercise participation

Yes

Did not complete

Insurance coverage and utilization of general preventative health services among women in Washington Heights, New York

Yes

Complete

Homeless adults discuss views on serious illness, death and dying: a descriptive study at an urban drop-in center

No

Did not complete

The relationship between physician referral of low-income women to therapeutic abortion and physicians’ knowledge and opinion of Medicaid funding for the procedure

Yes

Unknown

Barriers to patient utilization of written patient education materials in an urban Detroit obstetric clinic

Yes

Complete

Buprenorphine in the primary care setting: views from participants in a syringe exchange program in Washington, D.C.

Yes

Changed, in progress

What is the relationship between parental immigration status and Medicaid/SCHIP use in eligible Latino children of Montgomery County?

Yes

Changed, complete

Availability of Plan B at pharmacies in Escambia County, Florida

Yes

Complete

2005

The assessment of barriers to implementation of Arizona House Bill 2544 in schools on the Hopi Reservation in Arizona

Yes

In progress

Understanding and Use of Food Nutrition Labels by Adolescents

Yes

In progress

A comparison of antihypertensive prescription patterns and provider characteristics in Veteran Affairs (VA) clinics and community based clinics in relation to blood pressure control in hypertensive patients

Yes

Changed, in progress

What are the school-specific characteristics that facilitate international health work during medical school?

Yes

Complete

A prospective study using a screening tool in a pediatric visit for disclosure of intimate partner violence in the South Asian population of Queens, NY

No

Did not complete

A prospective cohort study of child malnutrition rates in families involved with chicken cooperatives in rural Nicaragua

Yes

Changed, in progress

Examining Health Outcomes of Legal Interventions for At-risk Children

Yes

In progress

Overview of both the domestic and international Community Health Worker model literature

Yes

In progress

A Study of the Healthcare of Parolees in Monroe County, New York

Yes

In progress

What is the relationship between border-crossing deaths across the US-Mexico border and the economy in Mexico?

Yes

In progress

Abstinence only or comprehensive sex education: A cross sectional study of the association between sex education curriculum and rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia in two midwestern cities

Yes

In progress

A review of the literature on Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) to develop guidelines for determining what resources are required to promote successful CBPR efforts

Yes

Complete

 

Appendix C

Post-Course Questionnaire

1. Based on your experiences over this past month during the Research-Based Health Activism elective at Montefiore Medical Center, indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements. (Select one for each item):

 

 

Strongly Agree

Agree

No Opinion

Dis-agree

Strongly Disagree

1.

I am able to explain the concept of research-based health activism











2.

The elective improved my understanding of the role of physicians in the development of the US healthcare system











3.

The elective taught me how to generate a research question











4.

The elective taught me how to organize an advocacy plan











5.

The elective taught me the differences between study designs











6.

The elective taught me how to write a research proposal











7.

The elective helped me feel more comfortable speaking in public











8.

The elective taught me important concepts in coalition building











9.

The elective taught me important concepts in lobbying











10.

The elective taught me important concepts in data analysis











11.

I feel able to design research projects











12.

I feel able to design advocacy plans











13.

The elective should be more fair and balanced in its politics











14.

The elective is too promotional of progressive political ideas











15.

The elective forced me to think about difficult social and political issues in US health care delivery











16.

The elective didn’t force me to think enough about difficult social and political issues in US health care delivery











17.

The elective provided ample opportunity for asking session leaders questions











18.

The elective provided ample opportunity for asking course faculty questions











19.

Course faculty were helpful in mentoring my project











20.

Course faculty were helpful in recruiting a mentor for my project











 

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.