Advocacy and Mobilization Program (AMP) Evaluation

The Advocacy and Mobilization Program (AMP) trained 130 healthcare professionals across three cohorts to engage in planetary health advocacy. Key successes included significant increases in participant confidence, storytelling skills, and the effectiveness of 'Hill Day' meetings with federal politicians. However, the program faced staffing challenges and found that a six-month commitment was often too resource-intensive for busy professionals, suggesting a shift toward shorter, more targeted training formats in the future.

• The 'Hill Day' component was highly successful, with participants rating their satisfaction at 4.53 out of 5 stars. In a survey of cohorts 2 and 3, 100% of participants agreed they felt more confident speaking with a politician, and 98% agreed they were more likely to reach out to a politician for advocacy.
• Participants reported meaningful improvements in four core advocacy skills: storytelling, mobilizing others, using traditional media, and direct lobbying. On average, participants reported a 1.4 point increase in these skills on a 5-point scale, with storytelling being the strongest reported skill (average score of 3.6).
• The program significantly boosted participant confidence and commitment. By the end of the training, 97% of participants reported increased confidence to engage in planetary health advocacy and 97% agreed the program strengthened their commitment to such advocacy.
• Training on environmental justice was well-received, particularly sessions on Indigenous worldviews and environmental racism. In cohorts 2 and 3, 73% of participants reported moderate or significant improvement in their knowledge of (in)equity and (in)justice impacts of the planetary health crisis.
• While 95% of participants agreed AMP broadened their peer network, the program struggled to foster deep peer connections due to its virtual nature and staffing constraints that prevented the full realization of alumni programming and identity caucuses.
• The program demonstrated a financial demand for accredited training; 84% of physicians paid the full fee of $2,500. However, the evaluation found that the six-month model was too resource-intensive for many healthcare professionals, suggesting that shorter 'bootcamps' or workshops would be more accessible.

APA

Miller, A. R., & Rezagian, K. (n.d.). Advocacy and Mobilization Program (AMP) Evaluation. Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. https://cape.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/AMP-Program-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf

Chicago

Miller, Anna Rose, and Kiemia Rezagian. Advocacy and Mobilization Program (AMP) Evaluation. Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, n.d. https://cape.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/AMP-Program-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Miller |first1=Anna Rose |last2=Rezagian |first2=Kiemia |title=Advocacy and Mobilization Program (AMP) Evaluation |publisher=Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment |url=https://cape.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/AMP-Program-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{millerndadvocacy, author = {Miller, Anna Rose and Rezagian, Kiemia}, title = {{Advocacy and Mobilization Program (AMP) Evaluation}}, institution = {Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment}, url = {https://cape.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/AMP-Program-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }