Search

Background: Research can inform policies on substance use/substance use disorders (SU/SUDs), yet there is limited experimental investigation into strategies for optimizing policymakers' engagement with SU/SUD research. This study tested the use of narratives to boost policymakers' research engagement., Methods: In five rapid-cycle randomized controlled trials, SU/SUD research fact sheets were emailed to US legislative policymakers. We tested the use of narratives on the number of email opens, fact sheet clicks, and replies, relative to control emails without narratives. Narratives described lived experience with SU/SUD or motivations to study SU/SUD. The sender was a person with lived experience who authored the narrative or an author of the fact sheet., Results: When the narrative was about the sender's own lived experience (Trial 1), or when the narrative was about the sender's motivations to study SU/SUDs (Trial 2), the fact sheet was clicked more than the control ( p =.049; p =.012; respectively). When the narrative was about someone else's experience (Trials 3 and 4), the email was opened ( p's <.001) and replied to ( p's <.001) less, and the fact sheet was clicked ( p's <.001) less. Lastly, emails with lived experience narratives were replied to more than the control, regardless of sender (fact sheet author: p =.028; narrative author: p =.002; Trial 5), but were opened more if the sender authored the narrative ( p <.001)., Conclusions: Policymakers' engagement with SU/SUD research generally increased when the sender was telling their own story. This work highlights the power of people with lived experience and informs strategies for optimizing policymakers' engagement with SU/SUD research., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

The policymaking process is largely opaque, especially regarding the actual writing of the policy. To attempt to better understand this complex process, we utilized mixed methods in our evaluation of an intervention. However, the process of mixing methods can be messy, and thus may require recalibration during the evaluation itself. Yet, in comparison to reporting results, relatively little attention is paid to the effects of mixing methods on the evaluation process. In this article, we take a reflexive approach to reporting a mixed methods evaluation of an intervention on the use of research evidence in U.S. federal policymaking. We focus on the research process in a qualitative coding team, and the effects of mixing methods on that process. Additionally, we report in general terms how to interpret multinomial logistic regressions, an underused analysis type applicable to many evaluations. Thus, this reflexive piece contributes (1) findings from evaluation of the intervention on the policymaking process, (2) an example of mixing methods leading to unexpected findings and future directions, (3) a report about the evaluation process itself, and (4) a tutorial for those new to multinomial logistic regressions., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The body of scientific knowledge accumulated by the scholarly disciplines such as Developmental Psychopathology can achieve meaningful public impact if wielded and used in policy decision-making. Scientific study of how policymakers use research evidence underscores the need for researchers' policy engagement; however, barriers in the academy create conditions in which there is a need for infrastructure that increases the feasibility of researchers' partnership with policymakers. This need led to the development of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration model, a systematic approach for developing "boundary spanning" infrastructure, which has been experimentally tested and shown to improve policymakers' use of research evidence and bolster researchers' policy skills and engagement. This paper presents original research regarding the optimization of the RPC model, which sought to better serve and engage scholars across the globe. Trial findings shed light on ways to improve conditions that make good use of researchers' time for policy engagement via a virtual platform and enhanced e-communications. Future directions, implications, and practical guidelines for how scientists can engage in the political process and improve the impact of a collective discipline are also discussed.

Background: There is a tremendous gap between the proportion of the population expressing concern about climate change and those engaged in climate change activism. We examined barriers to climate change activism among respondents stating climate change was an important issue to them., Methods: Participants in a national online longitudinal study reported on 12 reasons for lack of involvement in climate change actions. Five months later, engagement in six climate change actions was assessed. The primary analyses focused on the 319 respondents who, out of 592 respondents who participated in both surveys, reported that the issue of global warming was extremely or very important to them., Results: Participants showed a range of engagement in climate change activism behaviors: 29.8% donated money to an organization to reduce climate change, 32.3% signed a petition, 69.0% voted for candidates who support measures to reduce climate change, 11.9% wrote letters, e-mailed, or phoned government officials to urge them to take action, and 9.4% volunteered with organizations working to curb climate change. The median number of barriers was 5. The most frequent reasons for lack of involvement in climate change activism were other people are better at it (57.4%), hadn't been trained (56.7%), hadn't been asked (50.8%), not knowing how to get involved (49.8%), activities like letter writing not appealing (49.8%), too busy (38.9%), organizations would ask them for money (39.8%), and not encouraged to become involved (38.2%). Several barriers were associated with engagement in climate change activism five months later. The most consistent association with activism was with talking about climate change in the prior month., Conclusion: Most respondents cited several barriers that impeded their involvement in climate change activism. Select barriers were associated with reduced engagement in activism. Organizations that address climate change should acknowledge barriers but emphasize that individuals can engage in climate change activism regardless of barriers., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: While prior work has revealed conditions that foster policymakers' use of research evidence, few studies have rigorously investigated the effectiveness of theory-based practices. Specifically, policymakers are most apt to use research evidence when it is timely, relevant, brief, and messaged appropriately, as well as when it facilitates interactive engagement. This study sought to experimentally evaluate an enhanced research dissemination intervention, known as the SciComm Optimizer for Policy Engagement (SCOPE), implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic among US state legislators., Methods: State legislators assigned to health committees and their staff were randomized to receive the SCOPE intervention. This involved providing academic researchers with a pathway for translating and disseminating research relevant to current legislative priorities via fact sheets emailed directly to officials. The intervention occurred April 2020-March 2021. Research language was measured in state legislators' social media posts., Results: Legislators randomized to receive the intervention, relative to the control group, produced 24% more social media posts containing research language related to COVID-19. Secondary analyses revealed that these findings were driven by two different types of research language. Intervention officials produced 67% more COVID-related social media posts referencing technical language (e.g., statistical methods), as well as 28% more posts that referenced research-based concepts. However, they produced 31% fewer posts that referenced creating or disseminating new knowledge., Conclusions: This study suggests that strategic, targeted science communication efforts may have the potential to change state legislators' public discourse and use of evidence. Strategic science communication efforts are particularly needed in light of the role government officials have played in communicating about the pandemic to the general public., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Despite a growing body of research outlining the harms of thirdhand smoke (THS), the public remains generally unaware of risks and exposure routes. This project built on past tobacco prevention campaigns and the tenants of McGuire's input-output model to implement and evaluate a seven-month Facebook-disseminated campaign seeking to improve THS awareness among California adults ( n = 1087). Multilinear regression showed that THS-related knowledge ( χ 2 [6] = 19.31, p < .01), attitude ( χ 2 [6] = 13.88, p < .05), and efficacy ( χ 2 [6] = 13.81, p < .05) significantly increased by the campaign's end, with messages highlighting children's health ( r = .110, p < .05), pets ( r = .145, p < .01), and dust reservoirs ( r = .144, p < .01) as the most persuasive. Path analysis modeling found campaign recall to be associated with changes in knowledge ( β  = .161, p < .01), which predicated attitude change ( β  = .614, p < .001) and, in turn, behavior change ( β  = .149, p < .05). Findings suggest social media campaigns should continue to educate diverse populations about new tobacco risks and that tobacco control advocates should consider integrating educational THS messages.

Background and Aims: The growing body of research evidence on substance use and substance use disorder (SU/SUD) prevention could be leveraged to strengthen the intended impact of policies that address SU/SUD. The aim of the present study was to explore how research was used in United States federal legislation that emphasized SU/SUD prevention., Design: Using a mixed-methods approach, we assessed whether the use of research predicted a bill's legislative progress. We randomly sampled 10 bills that represented different types of research keywords to examine how research was used in these bills, applying content analysis., Setting: United States Congress., Participants/cases: Federal legislation introduced between the 101st and the 114th Congresses (1989-2017; n = 1866)., Measurements: The quantitative outcome measures were bills' likelihood of passing out of committee and being enacted. Qualitative outcomes included the ways research was used in legislation., Findings: Bills that used any research language were 2.2 times more likely to pass out of committee (OR = 2.18; 95% CI, 1.75, 2.72) and 82% more likely to be enacted (OR = 1.82; 95% CI, 1.23, 2.69) than bills not using research language. Bills using dissemination words were 57% more likely to pass out of committee (OR = 1.57; CI, 1.08, 2.28) and analysis words were 93% more likely (OR = 1.93; 95% CI, 1.51, 2.47) than bills not using dissemination or analysis words. Research was used to (i) define the problem to justify legislative action, (ii) address the problem by providing funding, and (iii) address the problem through industry regulations. However, there was a lack of research use that targets underlying risk and protective factors., Conclusions: In the US Congress, substance use and substance use disorder prevention bills that use research language appear to be more likely to progress in the legislative cycle than bills that do not, suggesting that legislation using research may be viewed as more credible., (© 2022 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Introduction: This study sought to provide essential tobacco control tools by testing the reliability and validity of new self-report scales developed to assess thirdhand smoke (THS) (ie, toxic tobacco residue) related knowledge, attitudes, and behavior (KAB)., Aims and Methods: Items for the KAB scales were adapted from established secondhand smoke (SHS) measures, reviewed to support face validity, and tested in a longitudinal online survey evaluating THS health messages. Participants were California adults at risk of THS exposure. For 7 months, the three KAB scales were completed monthly, and data from the first (n = 1086), third (n = 315), and seventh (n = 301) month surveys were used in these analyses., Results: All three scales demonstrated consistent reliability and single-factor loading at all three timepoints for knowledge (αrange: .87-.90), attitude (αrange: .84-.87), and behavior (αrange: .80-.86). Similarly, analyses supported scale convergent validity (scale correlations rrange: .45-.85; all p values <.001), discriminant validity between smokers and nonsmokers (knowledge Cohen's drange: .57-.61, all p values <.001; attitude Cohen's drange: .78-.82, all p values <.001; behavior Cohen's drange: .90-.99, all p values <.001), and predictive validity (range R2KAB: .41-.48; all p values <.001)., Conclusions: KAB scales about THS provide new opportunities for tobacco control advocates and scholars to identify gaps in knowledge, misperceptions, and obstacles to behavior change in order to guide the design of novel tobacco control policies and interventions., Implications: Numerous scales have been vetted as reliable and valid measures for assessing SHS-related KABs. Currently, standard measures of THS KABs are not available. This study tested three THS scales to fill this gap. The present findings provide tobacco control advocates, scholars, and practitioners tools for assessing KABs related to THS. This information is critical to development, implementation, and evaluation of novel tobacco control strategies., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved.For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Racial disparities and racism are pervasive public health threats that have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, it is critical and timely for researchers to communicate with policymakers about strategies for reducing disparities. From April through July 2020, across four rapid-cycle trials disseminating scientific products with evidence-based policy recommendations for addressing disparities, we tested strategies for optimizing the reach of scientific messages to policymakers. By getting such research into the hands of policymakers who can act on it, this work can help combat racial health disparities.( Am J Public Health . 2021;111(10):1768-1771. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306404).