Legislative Advocacy: Evaluation of a Grand Rounds Intervention for Pediatricians

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of a Grand Rounds Action Alert (GRAA) intervention on the behaviors, knowledge, and attitudes of pediatric grand rounds (GR) attendees; and to assess its acceptability. MethodsA cross-sectional, quasi-experimental study was performed at a freestanding children's hospital. GRAA on child health legislative topics were presented in the first 2 minutes of the pediatric GR session as well as posted outside. Each session included an action item, such as writing/signing letters to elected officials or informational sheets with legislator contact information. Main outcome measures included self-reported behavior, advocacy knowledge, attitudes, and acceptability. ResultsOne year after GRAA implementation, GR attendees with high exposure to the intervention were more likely to have written/signed a letter to a legislator compared to those with low/no exposure (60% vs 35%, P = .016). Those with high exposure were also more knowledgeable regarding financing of health care for low-income children (20% vs 5%, P = .027). Attitudes toward advocacy at baseline were positive: respondents agreed it is important to remain informed about (98%) and advocate for (94%) legislation favorable to children's health. Implementing this program was challenging, but the intervention was accepted favorably: 93% of respondents agreed that GRAA should continue. ConclusionsGRAA facilitated participation in legislative advocacy behaviors while improving self-perceived knowledge of legislative issues relating to children's health. They were well received in a large tertiary children's hospital.