What, What For, and What Against: How social constructions of advocacy differ across healthcare professions

• In Event: 20820 - Section on Medical Sociology Roundtables
  In Refereed Roundtable (90 minute): Table 19. Healthcare Providers & Practice II

Abstract

Since the 1960s, advocacy has emerged as an important and lauded value in healthcare; however, its interpretation remains disparate across healthcare professions. This paper analyzes how different medical fields construct the idea of advocacy, highlighting the resultant challenges for healthcare providers and scholars in fostering effective communication and collaboration.
This article draft uses data from educational requirements and standards in twelve medical and paramedical professions to identify how each profession’s field has constructed advocacy: what is it? Who advocates, for whom, against whom, and for what? What role does a good professional play in terms of advocacy? Or what is a base level of advocacy work that a patient can expect from a competent professional in each field?
This investigation underscores the potential for misunderstanding among healthcare professionals and researchers regarding the variously-defined but widely-promoted value of “advocacy.” The implications of these diverse understandings of advocacy can also cause confusion for patients seeking care. Ultimately, this paper argues that advocacy is an unsettled term with various meanings that are crucial for practitioners and researchers to understand and to communicate effectively to patients. Though it is so inconsistently defined, advocacy’s core principles have significant implications for patient care, standards of practice, and collaboration across medical professions. By understanding these differential constructs, healthcare communities and scholars can work toward a more comprehensive approach to advocacy that improves patient experiences and outcomes.

Authors

• Abigail Jorgensen, Saint Louis University

• Veda Kolli, Saint Louis University