This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letter  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Health Policy  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In the study of the public roles of US physicians by Dr Gruen and colleagues,¹ I was surprised by the marked discrepancy between the high physician ratings of the importance of political involvement and the low degree of political activity by physicians, particularly those in internal medicine. This discrepancy may be the result of the limited definition of political activity used by the authors.

To measure political activity, the authors asked physicians, "In the past 3 years have you been politically active (other than voting) on a local health care issue?"¹ This question implies that practicing physicians have to be active in a specific political issue to be politically active. But practicing physicians may be politically active in general without focusing on particular issues of concern. A study of internists in an academic setting found that significant numbers of physicians contributed money to political campaigns, attended campaign . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Craig A. Umscheid, MD, MSCE
craig.umscheid@uphs.upenn.edu
Department of Medicine
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
Philadelphia

RELATED LETTER

Political Activity of US Physicians—Reply
Russell L. Gruen, Eric G. Campbell, and David Blumenthal
JAMA. 2007;297(9):951-952.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLE

Public Roles of US Physicians: Community Participation, Political Involvement, and Collective Advocacy
Russell L. Gruen, Eric G. Campbell, and David Blumenthal
JAMA. 2006;296(20):2467-2475.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT