This research project investigated the extent to which nurses engage in two important kinds of ethical behaviours: ethical activism (where they try to make hospitals more receptive to nurses' participation in ethics deliberations) and ethical assertiveness (where they participate in ethics deliberations even when not formally invited). This research probed not only the extent to which nurses engage in these ethical behaviours but also whether this is influenced by professional, training and organizational factors. A random sample of 165 nurses from three major hospitals in Los Angeles provided the data. Regression analyses indicate that both ethical activism and ethical assertiveness are strongly influenced by nurses' perceptions of the receptivity of hospitals to their inclusion in ethics deliberations. In addition, nurses' education in ethics is a significant predictor of ethical activism. The findings have important implications for the content of nurses' ethics training as well as for expanding the boundaries of nurses' participation in ethics deliberations. The authors define ethics deliberations as specific meetings of a number of people to discuss an ethical issue, such as one regarding the care of a patient.

Codes of ethics of nursing, social work, and medicine, as well as Joint Commission Accreditation Standards, require members of these professions to engage in advocacy on behalf of patients. With use of expert panels, seven categories of patient problems in the healthcare milieu were identified: ethical rights, quality care, preventive care, culturally competent care, affordable/accessible care, mental health care, and care linked to patients' homes and communities. To measure the frequency with which healthcare professionals engage in patient advocacy related to these specific problems, the Patient Advocacy Engagement Scale (Patient-AES) scale was developed and validated through analysis of responses of 297 professionals (94 social workers, 97 nurses, and 104 medical residents) recruited from the personnel rosters of eight acute-care hospitals in Los Angeles County. Hospitals included public, not-for-profit, HMO, and church-affiliated hospitals that served general hospital populations, veterans, cancer patients, and children. Results supported the validity of both the concept and the instrument. Construct validity was supported by testing the hypothesized seven-factor solution through confirmatory factor analysis; 26 items loaded onto seven components. Pearson correlations for the overall scale and seven subscales in two administrations supported their test-retest stability. Cronbach a ranged from .55 to .94 for the seven subscales and .95 for the overall Patient-AES. The Patient-AES is, to our knowledge, the first scale that measures patient advocacy engagement by healthcare professionals in acute-care settings related to a broad range of specific patient problems. ß

This study aims to describe the factors that predict health professionals' engagement in policy advocacy. The researchers used a cross-sectional research design with a sample of 97 nurses, 94 social workers, and 104 medical residents from eight hospitals in Los Angeles. Bivariate correlations explored whether seven predictor scales were associated with health professionals' policy advocacy engagement and revealed that five of the eight factors were significantly associated with it (p < .05). The factors include patient advocacy engagement, eagerness, skills, tangible support, and organizational receptivity. Regression analysis examined whether the seven scales, when controlling for sociodemographic variables and hospital site, predicted levels of policy advocacy engagement. Results revealed that patient advocacy engagement (p < .001), eagerness (p < .001), skills (p < .01), tangible support (p < .01), perceived effectiveness (p < .05), and organizational receptivity (p < .05) all predicted health professional's policy advocacy engagement. Ethical commitment did not predict policy advocacy engagement. The model explained 36% of the variance in policy advocacy engagement. Limitations of the study and its implications for future research, practice, and policy are discussed.

This article advocates greater empirical research on ethics in health care by social work researchers. Although an extensive theoretical literature exists, scant empirical research has been conducted on ethical issues by social work researchers since 1980, compared with physicians and other health care researchers. A theoretical framework is presented as a heuristic device to stimulate research on a range of topics, including the content and nature of ethical deliberations, contextual factors, and ethical outcomes. By demonstrating empirically that their interventions improve ethical outcomes, social work researchers can provide ammunition to support social work's role in ethical deliberations in health care settings.

The Policy Advocacy Engagement Scale appears to be the first validated scale to measure frontline healthcare professionals' engagement in policy advocacy. With it, researchers can analyze variations in professionals' levels of policy advocacy engagement, understand what factors are associated with it, and remedy barriers that might exist to their provision of it.