Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effectiveness of a short, skills-based workshop, called a Letter-Writing Lunch (LWL), in teaching advocacy to medical students. METHODS: We assessed political activity, political efficacy, civic responsibility, and skill mastery via pre-, post-, and 6-month follow-up surveys. Via semistructured follow-up interviews, we explored how the intervention affected the participant's view of advocacy. RESULTS: Students mastered identifying and contacting their representatives. Participants' political activity scores demonstrated little to no political activity at baseline and were unchanged at 6 months. Political efficacy scores increased after the event (t[53]=8.5, P<.001), and they remained elevated at 6 months (t[25]=2.1, P=.047). Feelings of civic responsibility significantly increased from the pre-to postsurvey (z=482.5, P<.001), but returned to baseline by 6 months. Four themes emerged from the follow-up interviews: (a) A disconnect exists between what medical students believe their responsibilities are and what they are doing; (b) medical students believe their current advocacy curriculum lacks depth and applicability; (c) students want programming that is realistic in the context of their limited time, varying passions, and current skill level; and (d) the LWL changed students' views on advocacy. CONCLUSIONS: Current skills-based education is time-intensive and fails to engage students who are not already committed to developing advocacy skills. Keeping the LWL short in length successfully targeted students with little previous advocacy experience. The event increased political efficacy and civic responsibility while making advocacy appear more accessible. The LWL is an effective and efficient way to teach advocacy to medical students.