BACKGROUND: Despite advocacy being a crucial role for nurses, its scope is often limited in clinical practice. Although numerous studies have identified barriers to patient advocacy, their recommendations for resolution were unclear.
METHOD: The study employed a constructivist grounded theory methodology, with 13 Saudi Arabian registered nurses, working in critical care, in a tertiary academic teaching hospital. Semi-structured interviews, with broad open-ended questions, and reflective participant journals were used to collect data. All interviews were concurrently analysed and transcribed verbatim.
RESULTS: Gender, culture, education, subjugation, communal patronage, organisational support and repercussions, and role-associated risks were all revealed as factors affecting their ability to act as advocates for critically ill patients.
CONCLUSION: Saudi Arabian ICU nurses in the study believed that advocacy is problematic. Despite attempting to advocate for their patients, they are unable to act to an optimal level, instead choosing avoidance of the potential risks associated with the role, or confrontation, which often had undesirable outcomes. Patient advocacy from a Saudi Arabian nursing perspective is contextually complex, controversial and remains uncertain. Further research is needed to ensure patient safety is supported by nurses as effective advocates.
METHODS: The authors conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with 98 participants representing 23 LMICs in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, East and Southern Africa, and Latin America.
RESULTS: Despite geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic differences, the common themes that emerged from the data across the 3 regions are strikingly similar: trust, knowledge gaps, stigma, sharing experiences, and sustainability. The authors identified common facilitators (training/education, relationship building/networking, third-party facilitators, and communication) and barriers (mistrust, stigma, organizational fragility, difficulty translating HIC strategies) to establishing trust, collaboration, and advancing cancer advocacy efforts. To the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first to describe the role that coalitions and regional networks play in advancing breast cancer advocacy in LMICs across multiple regions.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the current study corroborate the importance of investing in 3-way partnerships between CSOs, political leaders, and health experts. When provided with information that is evidence-based and resource appropriate, as well as opportunities to network, advocates are better equipped to achieve their goals. The authors propose that support for CSOs focuses on building trust through increasing opportunities for engagement, disseminating best practices and evidence-based information, and fostering the creation of platforms for partnerships and networks.