THURS-060 - Advocacy Training for Public Health Professionals: A RE-AIM Scoping Review

Brief Abstract Summary: Discover how public health advocacy training programs shape workforce capacity and policy outcomes. This scoping review, guided by the RE-AIM framework, synthesizes over two decades of peer-reviewed literature to identify characteristics, outcomes, and gaps in advocacy training for public health professionals. Attendees will learn about current practices found in the systematic review, such as program duration and academic integration, that can strengthen training effectiveness. The session highlights evidence-based recommendations to improve future training efforts and foster policy change. Participants will learn about actionable insights of implementation and evaluation of advocacy programs and next steps for advocacy programs that advance health equity and drive public health impact.

Detailed abstract description:

Background: Public health advocacy is essential for advancing policy, yet formal training programs for professionals remain limited, fragmented, and inconsistently evaluated. Without structured opportunities to develop advocacy skills, the workforce may be underprepared to influence legislation, regulations, and systems-level decisions that shape health outcomes. Advocacy training is a critical lever to strengthen capacity, advance equity, and translate evidence into sustainable policy change.

Purpose: The purpose of this abstract and systematic review is to examine how public health advocacy training programs affect policy outcomes and workforce capacity. Guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, the review identifies program characteristics, outcomes, and gaps in the literature.

Methods: We are conducting a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published between 2022 and 2025 across Medline OVID, Embase, ERIC, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Eligible study designs include experimental, qusi-experimental, and observational studies, as well as systematic reviews. Two reviewers are independently screening and extracting data, with risk of bias assessed using ROBINS-I and evidence certainty using the GRADE approach. Data synthesis will be guided by RE-AIM domains.
Anticipated

Results: Preliminary findings suggest advocacy training programs have predominantly focused on tobacco control, HIV/AIDs, and reproductive health. Programs embedded within academic curricula or structured as cohort experiences demonstrate stronger adoption and maintenance. Anticipated gaps in literature include limited emphasis on equity, inconsistent outcome reporting, and few assessments of long-term policy impact. Full results and analyses will include descriptive analyses of training characteristics (e.g., format, duration, theoretical framework) and documented policy impacts.
Discussion and Implications: This session will highlight how public health advocacy training programs have been designed, implemented, and evaluated across different contexts, while underscoring the limitations of the current evidence base. Preliminary findings suggest that, although training programs can strengthen professional skills and contribute to policy outcomes, the use of advocacy training is inconsistent and long-term impacts remain unclear. Attendees will recognize the continued need for advocacy training opportunities that prepare the workforce to influence policy and address health inequities. This systematic review and abstract reinforce the importance of investing in advocacy training as a strategy to expand workforce capacity and align with the SOPHE 2026 theme, Local Roots, Global Impact: Transforming Health Through Education.