Although literature documents the need for hospital social workers, nurses, and medical residents to engage in patient advocacy, little information exists about what predicts the extent they do so. This study aims to identify predictors of health professionals' patient advocacy engagement with respect to a broad range of patients' problems. A cross-sectional research design was employed with a sample of 94 social workers, 97 nurses, and 104 medical residents recruited from eight hospitals in Los Angeles. Bivariate correlations explored whether seven scales (Patient Advocacy Eagerness, Ethical Commitment, Skills, Tangible Support, Organizational Receptivity, Belief Other Professionals Engage, and Belief the Hospital Empowers Patients) were associated with patient advocacy engagement, measured by the validated Patient Advocacy Engagement Scale. Regression analysis examined whether these scales, when controlling for sociodemographic and setting variables, predicted patient advocacy engagement. While all seven predictor scales were significantly associated with patient advocacy engagement in correlational analyses, only Eagerness, Skills, and Belief the Hospital Empowers Patients predicted patient advocacy engagement in regression analyses. Additionally, younger professionals engaged in higher levels of patient advocacy than older professionals, and social workers engaged in greater patient advocacy than nurses. Limitations and the utility of these findings for acute-care hospitals are discussed.

Codes of ethics of nursing, social work, and medicine, as well as Joint Commission Accreditation Standards, require members of these professions to engage in advocacy on behalf of patients. With use of expert panels, seven categories of patient problems in the healthcare milieu were identified: ethical rights, quality care, preventive care, culturally competent care, affordable/accessible care, mental health care, and care linked to patients' homes and communities. To measure the frequency with which healthcare professionals engage in patient advocacy related to these specific problems, the Patient Advocacy Engagement Scale (Patient-AES) scale was developed and validated through analysis of responses of 297 professionals (94 social workers, 97 nurses, and 104 medical residents) recruited from the personnel rosters of eight acute-care hospitals in Los Angeles County. Hospitals included public, not-for-profit, HMO, and church-affiliated hospitals that served general hospital populations, veterans, cancer patients, and children. Results supported the validity of both the concept and the instrument. Construct validity was supported by testing the hypothesized seven-factor solution through confirmatory factor analysis; 26 items loaded onto seven components. Pearson correlations for the overall scale and seven subscales in two administrations supported their test-retest stability. Cronbach α ranged from .55 to .94 for the seven subscales and .95 for the overall Patient-AES. The Patient-AES is, to our knowledge, the first scale that measures patient advocacy engagement by healthcare professionals in acute-care settings related to a broad range of specific patient problems. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background

Nurses, social workers, and medical residents are ethically mandated to engage in policy advocacy to promote the health and well-being of patients and increase access to care. Yet, no instrument exists to measure their level of engagement in policy advocacy.

Research objective

To describe the development and validation of the Policy Advocacy Engagement Scale, designed to measure frontline healthcare professionals' engagement in policy advocacy with respect to a broad range of issues, including patients' ethical rights, quality of care, culturally competent care, preventive care, affordability/accessibility of care, mental healthcare, and community-based care.

Research design

Cross-sectional data were gathered to estimate the content and construct validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability of the Policy Advocacy Engagement Scale. Participants and context: In all, 97 nurses, 94 social workers, and 104 medical residents (N = 295) were recruited from eight acute-care hospitals in Los Angeles County. Ethical considerations: Informed consent was obtained via Qualtrics and covered purposes, risks and benefits; voluntary participation; confidentiality; and compensation. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from the University of Southern California and all hospitals.

Findings

Results supported the validity of the concept and the instrument. In confirmatory factor analysis, seven items loaded onto one component with indices indicating adequate model fit. A Pearson correlation coefficient of .36 supported the scale's test-retest stability. Cronbach's α of .93 indicated strong internal consistency.

Discussion

The Policy Advocacy Engagement Scale demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties in this initial test. Findings should be considered within the context of the study's limitations, which include a low response rate and limited geographic scope.

Conclusion

The Policy Advocacy Engagement Scale appears to be the first validated scale to measure frontline healthcare professionals' engagement in policy advocacy. With it, researchers can analyze variations in professionals' levels of policy advocacy engagement, understand what factors are associated with it, and remedy barriers that might exist to their provision of it.

This study aims to describe the factors that predict health professionals' engagement in policy advocacy. The researchers used a cross-sectional research design with a sample of 97 nurses, 94 social workers, and 104 medical residents from eight hospitals in Los Angeles. Bivariate correlations explored whether seven predictor scales were associated with health professionals' policy advocacy engagement and revealed that five of the eight factors were significantly associated with it (p < .05). The factors include patient advocacy engagement, eagerness, skills, tangible support, and organizational receptivity. Regression analysis examined whether the seven scales, when controlling for sociodemographic variables and hospital site, predicted levels of policy advocacy engagement. Results revealed that patient advocacy engagement (p < .001), eagerness (p < .001), skills (p < .01), tangible support (p < .01), perceived effectiveness (p < .05), and organizational receptivity (p < .05) all predicted health professional's policy advocacy engagement. Ethical commitment did not predict policy advocacy engagement. The model explained 36% of the variance in policy advocacy engagement. Limitations of the study and its implications for future research, practice, and policy are discussed.