Search

Your search keyword '"evidence use in policymaking"' showing total 2 results
Start Over Descriptor "evidence use in policymaking" Topic female
2 results on '"evidence use in policymaking"'

1. “My good friends on the other side of the aisle aren’t bothered by those facts”: U.S. State legislators’ use of evidence in making policy on abortion

Author

Woodruff, Katie and Roberts, Sarah CM

Subjects
Public Health, Health Sciences, 8.3 Policy, ethics, and research governance, Good Health and Well Being, Abortion, Legal, Data Accuracy, Decision Making, Female, Health Policy, Humans, Male, Maryland, North Carolina, Politics, Pregnancy, Qualitative Research, Virginia, Abortion, Policy, US state policy, Lawmakers, Evidence use in policymaking, U.S. state policy, Clinical Sciences, Paediatrics and Reproductive Medicine, Public Health and Health Services, Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, Clinical sciences, Reproductive medicine, Health services and systems
Abstract

ObjectiveIn recent years, U.S. states have passed many restrictive abortion policies with a rationale of protecting health and safety, in apparent contravention of abundant scientific evidence on abortion safety. This study explored whether and how state legislators use scientific evidence when deciding abortion policy.Study designWe conducted 29 semi-structured interviews with state legislators and their aides in Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia in March through July 2017. We recruited via e-mail to members of all health-related committees of the General Assembly in each state, plus sponsors and co-sponsors of 2017 abortion bills, with follow-up via phone and in person. We conducted iterative thematic analysis of all interview transcripts.ResultsWe found no cases of lawmakers' decisions on abortion being shifted by evidence. However, some lawmakers used evidence in simplified form to support their claims on abortion. Lawmakers gave credence to evidence they received from trusted sources, and that which supported their pre-existing policy preferences. Personal stories appeared more convincing than evidence, with participants drawing broad conclusions from anecdotes. Democrats and Republicans had different views on bias in evidence.ConclusionsIn this sample, evidence did not drive state legislators' policymaking on abortion. However, evidence did help inform high-level understanding of abortion, if such evidence supported legislators' pre-existing policy preferences. This work may help public health practitioners and researchers develop more realistic expectations for how research interacts with policymaking.Implications of this workTo increase the utility of research, reproductive health researchers and practitioners should 1) work with established intermediaries to convey findings to lawmakers; 2) present stories that illustrate research findings; and 3) consider the evidence needs of the judicial branch, in addition to those of legislators.

Published
2020

2. 'My good friends on the other side of the aisle aren't bothered by those facts': U.S. State legislators' use of evidence in making policy on abortion

Author

Sarah C. M. Roberts and Katie Woodruff

Subjects
Male, Contravention, medicine.medical_specialty, General assembly, Credence, Clinical Sciences, Decision Making, Abortion, Article, Scientific evidence, Paediatrics and Reproductive Medicine, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Pregnancy, North Carolina, Medicine, Humans, 030212 general & internal medicine, Obstetrics & Reproductive Medicine, U.S. state policy, Qualitative Research, Reproductive health, 030219 obstetrics & reproductive medicine, Maryland, business.industry, Public health, Health Policy, Politics, Virginia, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Public relations, Lawmakers, Data Accuracy, Evidence use in policymaking, Policy, Reproductive Medicine, Abortion, Legal, Public Health and Health Services, Female, Public Health, Thematic analysis, business, Legal
Abstract

Objective In recent years, U.S. states have passed many restrictive abortion policies with a rationale of protecting health and safety, in apparent contravention of abundant scientific evidence on abortion safety. This study explored whether and how state legislators use scientific evidence when deciding abortion policy. Study Design We conducted 29 semi-structured interviews with state legislators and their aides in Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia in March through July 2017. We recruited via e-mail to members of all health-related committees of the General Assembly in each state, plus sponsors and co-sponsors of 2017 abortion bills, with follow-up via phone and in person. We conducted iterative thematic analysis of all interview transcripts. Results We found no cases of lawmakers’ decisions on abortion being shifted by evidence. However, some lawmakers used evidence in simplified form to support their claims on abortion. Lawmakers gave credence to evidence they received from trusted sources, and that which supported their pre-existing policy preferences. Personal stories appeared more convincing than evidence, with participants drawing broad conclusions from anecdotes. Democrats and Republicans had different views on bias in evidence. Conclusions In this sample, evidence did not drive state legislators’ policymaking on abortion. However, evidence did help inform high-level understanding of abortion, if such evidence supported legislators’ pre-existing policy preferences. This work may help public health practitioners and researchers develop more realistic expectations for how research interacts with policymaking. Implications of this work To increase the utility of research, reproductive health researchers and practitioners should 1) work with established intermediaries to convey findings to lawmakers; 2) present stories that illustrate research findings; and 3) consider the evidence needs of the judicial branch, in addition to those of legislators.

Published
2019

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results