Dataset Information

Communicating evidence-based information on cancer prevention to state-level policy makers.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Opportunities exist to disseminate evidence-based cancer control strategies to state-level policy makers in both the legislative and executive branches. We explored factors that influence the likelihood that state-level policy makers will find a policy brief understandable, credible, and useful.

Methods

A systematic approach was used to develop four types of policy briefs on the topic of mammography screening to reduce breast cancer mortality: data-focused brief with state-level data, data-focused brief with local-level data, story-focused brief with state-level data, and story-focused brief with local-level data. Participants were recruited from three groups of state-level policy makers-legislative staff, legislators, and executive branch administrators- in six states that were randomly chosen after stratifying all 50 states by population size and dominant political party in state legislature. Participants from each of the three policy groups were randomly assigned to receive one of the four types of policy briefs and completed a questionnaire that included a series of Likert scale items. Primary outcomes-whether the brief was understandable, credible, likely to be used, and likely to be shared-were measured by a 5-point Likert scale according to the degree of agreement (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Data were analyzed with analysis of variance and with classification trees. All statistical tests were two-sided.

Results

Data on response to the policy briefs (n = 291) were collected from February through December 2009 (overall response rate = 35%). All three policy groups found the briefs to be understandable and credible, with mean ratings that ranged from 4.3 to 4.5. The likelihood of using the brief (the dependent variable) differed statistically significantly by study condition for staffers (P = .041) and for legislators (P = .018). Staffers found the story-focused brief containing state-level data most useful, whereas legislators found the data-focused brief containing state-level data most useful. Exploratory classification trees showed distinctive patterns for brief usefulness across the three policy groups.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that taking a "one-size-fits-all" approach when delivering information to policy makers may be less effective than communicating information based on the type of policy maker.

SUBMITTER: Brownson RC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3039727 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Communicating evidence-based information on cancer prevention to state-level policy makers.

Brownson Ross C RC Dodson Elizabeth A EA Stamatakis Katherine A KA Casey Christopher M CM Elliott Michael B MB Luke Douglas A DA Wintrode Christopher G CG Kreuter Matthew W MW

Journal of the National Cancer Institute 20110106 4

<h4>Background</h4>Opportunities exist to disseminate evidence-based cancer control strategies to state-level policy makers in both the legislative and executive branches. We explored factors that influence the likelihood that state-level policy makers will find a policy brief understandable, credible, and useful.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic approach was used to develop four types of policy briefs on the topic of mammography screening to reduce breast cancer mortality: data-focused brief with st ...[more]

PMID: 21212381

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based health policy (EBHP) development is critical to the judicious use of public funds. EBHPs increase transparency, accountability, effectiveness, and efficiency of policies. Encouraging collaboration between researchers or knowledge producers and policy makers is important because both communities have distinct professional cultures, resulting in them working separately without understanding each other. Knowledge sharing is a complex process that requires understanding of cultural aspects that may reduce cultural differences and increase the use of common language. Health information technology (HIT) is a useful tool to increase knowledge translation, which may result in the transparent use of evidence and networking in developing EBHPs. Our vision is to leverage HIT tools for a better health system that includes digitalized, open source, evidence-based, and transparent ways for collaboration and development of robust mechanisms and for sharing of synthesized evidence with knowledge user-friendly forms.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to develop a conceptual framework on Knowledge translation and health Information Technology for Transparency (KhITT) in policy making and EBHPs (ie, the KhITT framework). The framework will be informed by the views of four key stakeholder groups (ie, policy makers, knowledge producers, HIT professionals, and the public) toward EBHP. The informants may also describe practices that demonstrate the EBHP development process and suggest technology platforms to enable this process.MethodsWe propose an exploratory, descriptive qualitative study to take place in British Columbia, Canada, using in-depth semistructured interviews. To ensure data saturation and trustworthiness, we will use a nonprobability, purposive snowball sample of up to 15 eligible participants in each of the four stakeholder groups. We will analyze the data using content analysis.ResultsThe KhITT framework focuses on various stakeholders' perspectives to better understand their perceived needs and priorities in identifying issues with EBHP, in order to make informed recommendations. Ethics approval has been obtained by the harmonized Behavioural Research Ethics Board at the University of British Columbia. We anticipate that we will complete data collection and analysis by December 2020. Preliminary results will be published in summer 2021.ConclusionsOur ultimate goal of this study is to develop a conceptual framework and describe the technology platforms that would enable the EBHP process. We anticipate that our rigorous content analysis will be able to produce insights and themes that are able to address our objectives, contribute to an in-depth understanding of the EBHP process within British Columbia, highlight all influential factors, explicitly disseminate and communicate the study results, identify issues with EBHP and provide informed recommendations to address them, and enhance efforts toward transparent EBHPs.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/16268.

Project description:BackgroundRural Australian populations experience an increased burden of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) compared to their metropolitan counterparts, similar to other developed countries, globally. Policy and other efforts need to address and acknowledge these differences in order to reduce inequalities in health burden. This paper examines rural health policy makers' perceptions and use of evidence in efforts to reduce the burden of IHD in rural areas.MethodsPolicy makers and government advisors (n = 21) who worked with, or advised on, rural health policy at local, state and federal government levels, with specific focus on the state of Victoria (n = 9) were identified from publicly available documents and subsequent snowball sample. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted in regards to the use of evidence in policy to prevent IHD and thematic analysis undertaken applying two theoretical perspectives: context-based evidence-based policy making and the conceptual framework for understanding rural and remote health.ResultsThe rural context, particularly low resourcing, was seen as limiting potential for evidence based policy at local government (LG) level. Lower levels of political pressure and education were seen as constraints to evidence-based policy in rural communities. Participants described the potential for policy to have a greater impact on reducing heart disease in rural areas though they felt under-resourced and out of touch with the scientific evidence. Scientific studies were less valued than local anecdote to prioritise specific policy. At all levels (local, state and federal) low self-efficacy in interpreting evidence and perceived lack of relevance inhibited development of evidence informed policy.ConclusionThe rural context constrains the use of scientific evidence in policy making for the prevention of heart disease in rural areas in Australia with multiple factors influencing the capacity for evidenced based health policy. This is similar to findings at the international scale and is for consideration across other developed countries that experience inequalities in IHD disease burden between rural and urban populations.

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding why research is conducted may help address the under-utilisation of research. This study examined the reasons for childhood obesity prevention knowledge production in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, and the factors influencing research choices from the perspective of the researchers and health policy agencies contributing to the research.MethodsA literature search of SCOPUS and ISI Web of Knowledge (affiliation and key word searches) was conducted to compile a database of NSW childhood obesity research outputs, published between 2000 and 2015 (n = 543). Descriptive statistics were used to quantify outputs by research type, differentiating measurement, descriptive, and intervention research, systematic reviews and other publications. Interviews were conducted with a sample of researchers drawn from the database (n = 13) and decision makers from health policy agencies who funded and contributed to childhood obesity research in NSW (n = 15). Researcher interviews examined views about societal impacts, why and under what circumstances the research was conducted. Decision-maker interviews examined policy agency research investment and how research was used in decision making. Content analysis and a thematic approach was used to analyse the interview transcripts.ResultsThe research in this case was conducted for mix of reasons including those traditionally associated with academic inquiry, as well as intentions to influence policy and practice. Differences in funding mechanisms, administrative and employment arrangements, and 'who' initiated the research, created differing incentives and perspectives for knowledge production. Factors associated with the characteristics and experience of the individuals involved also influenced goals, as did the type of research conducted. Policy agencies played a role in directing research to address policy needs.ConclusionsThe findings of this study confirm that researchers are strongly influenced by their working environment. Funding schemes and other incentives to support policy relevant knowledge production are important. Contextual factors such as policy priorities, policy-driven research funding and the embedded nature or strong connections between some researchers and the policy agencies involved, are likely to have influenced the extent to which policy goals were reported in this study.

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, little is known about the types of evidence used by policy makers. This study aimed to investigate how policy makers in the health domain use and evaluate evidence and how this differs from academic epidemiologists. By having a better understanding of how policy makers select, evaluate, and use evidence, academics can tailor the way in which that evidence is produced, potentially leading to more effective knowledge translation.MethodsAn exploratory mixed-methods study design was used. Quantitative measures were collected via an anonymous online survey (n?=?28), with sampling from three health-related government and non-government organizations. Semi-structured interviews with policy makers (n?=?20) and epidemiologists (n?=?6) were conducted to gather qualitative data.ResultsPolicy makers indicated systematic reviews were the preferred research resource (19%), followed closely by qualitative research (16%). Neither policy makers nor epidemiologists used grading instruments to evaluate evidence. In the web survey, policy makers reported that consistency and strength of evidence (93%), the quality of data (93%), bias in the evidence (79%), and recency of evidence (79%) were the most important factors taken into consideration when evaluating the available evidence. The same results were found in the qualitative interviews. Epidemiologists focused on the methodology used in the study. The most cited barriers to using robust evidence, according to policy makers, were political considerations (60%), time limitations (55%), funding (50%), and research not being applicable to current policies (50%).ConclusionThe policy maker's investigation did not report a systematic approach to evaluating evidence. Although there was some overlap between what policy makers and epidemiologists identified as high-quality evidence, there was also some important differences. This suggests that the best scientific evidence may not routinely be used in the development of policy. In essence, the policy-making process relied on other jurisdictions' policies and the opinions of internal staff members as primary evidence sources to inform policy decisions. Findings of this study suggest that efforts should be directed toward making scientific information more systematically available to policy makers.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of health policy and systems research (HPSR) to inform health policy-making is an international challenge. Incorporating HPSR into decision-making primarily involves two groups, namely researchers (knowledge producers) and policy-makers (knowledge users). The purpose of this study was to compare the perceptions of Israeli health systems and policy researchers and health services policy-makers regarding the role of HPSR, factors influencing its uses and potential facilitators and barriers to HPSR, and implementation of knowledge transfer and exchange (KTE) activities.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was administered to researchers and policy-makers in Israel. The survey consisted of seven closed questions. Descriptive analyses were carried out for closed-ended questions and comparative analysis were conducted between groups using the ?2 test.ResultsA total of 37 researchers and 32 policy-makers responded to the survey. While some views were in alignment, others showed differences. More policy-makers than researchers perceived that the use of HPSR in policy was hindered by practical implementation constraints, whereas more researchers felt that its use was hindered by a lack of coordination between knowledge producers and users. A larger percentage of policy-makers, as compared to researchers, reported that facilitators to the KTE process are in place and a larger percentage of researchers perceived barriers within the KTE environment. A larger percentage of policy-makers perceived KTE activities were in place as compared to researchers. Results also showed large differences in the perceptions of the two groups regarding policy formulation and which organisations they perceived as exerting strong influence on policy-making.ConclusionsThis research demonstrated that there are differences in the perceptions of knowledge producers and users about the process of KTE. Future work should focus on minimising the challenges highlighted here and implementing new KTE activities. These activities could include making the researchers aware of the most effective manner in which to package their results, providing training to policy-makers and assuring that policy-makers have technical access to appropriate databases to search for HPSR. These results underscore the need for the groups to communicate and clarify to each other what they can offer and what they require.

Project description:Background Rapid reviews (RRs) are useful products to healthcare policy-makers and other stakeholders, who require timely evidence. Therefore, it is important to assess how well RRs convey useful information in a format that is easy to understand so that decision-makers can make best use of evidence to inform policy and practice. Methods We assessed a diverse sample of 103 RRs against the BRIDGE criteria, originally developed for communicating clearly to support healthcare policy-making. We modified the criteria to increase assessability and to align with RRs. We identified RRs from key database searches and through searching organisations known to produce RRs. We assessed each RR on 26 factors (e.g. organisation of information, lay language use). Results were descriptively analysed. Further, we explored differences between RRs published in journals and those published elsewhere. Results Certain criteria were well covered across the RRs (e.g. all aimed to synthesise research evidence and all provided references of included studies). Further, most RRs provided detail on the problem or issue (96%; n =?99) and described methods to conduct the RR (91%; n =?94), while several addressed political or health systems contexts (61%; n =?63). Many RRs targeted policy-makers and key stakeholders as the intended audience (66%; n =?68), yet only 32% (n =?33) involved their tacit knowledge, while fewer (27%; n =?28) directly involved them reviewing the content of the RR. Only six RRs involved patient partners in the process. Only 23% (n =?24) of RRs were prepared in a format considered to make information easy to absorb (i.e. graded entry) and 25% (n =?26) provided specific key messages. Readability assessment indicated that the text of key RR sections would be hard to understand for an average reader (i.e. would require post-secondary education) and would take 42 (± 36) minutes to read. Conclusions Overall, conformity of the RRs with the modified BRIDGE criteria was modest. By assessing RRs against these criteria, we now understand possible ways in which they could be improved to better meet the information needs of healthcare decision-makers and their potential for innovation as an information-packaging mechanism. The utility and validity of these items should be further explored. Protocol availability The protocol, published on the Open Science Framework, is available at: osf.io/68tj7

Project description:Introduction: Physicians vary widely in how they treat some health conditions, despite strong evidence favoring certain treatments over others. We examined physicians' perspectives on factors that support or hinder evidence-based decisions and the implications for delivery systems, payers, and policymakers. Methods: We used Choosing Wisely® recommendations to create four clinical vignettes for common types of decisions. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 36 specialists to identify factors that support or hinder evidence-based decisions. We examined these factors using a conceptual framework that includes six levels: patients, physicians, practice sites, organizations, networks and hospital affiliations, and the local market. In this model, population characteristics and payer and regulatory factors interact to influence decisions. Results: Patient openness to behavior modification and expectations, facilitated and hindered physicians in making evidence-based recommendations. Physicians' communication skills were the most commonly mentioned facilitator. Practice site, organization, and hospital system barriers included measures of emergency department throughput, the order in which test options are listed in electronic health records (EHR), lack of relevant decision support in EHRs, and payment incentives that maximize billing and encourage procedures rather than medical management or counseling patients on behavior change. Factors from different levels interacted to undermine evidence-based care. Most physicians received billing feedback, but quality metrics on evidence-based service use were nonexistent for the four decisions in this study. Conclusions and Implications: Additional research and quality improvement may help to modify delivery systems to overcome barriers at multiple levels. Enhancing provider communication skills, improving decision support in EHRs, modifying workflows, and refining the design and interpretation of some quality metrics would help, particularly if combined with concurrent payment reform to realign financial incentives across stakeholders.

Project description:There is increasing interest globally in the use of more rigorous processes to ensure that maternal, newborn, and child health (MNCH) care recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence use. The purpose of this study was to engage Nigerian MNCH policy-makers and other stakeholders to consider issues around research to policy and practice interface and to assess their existing knowledge and capacity on the use of research evidence for policy-making and practice.The study design is a cross-sectional evaluation of MNCH stakeholders' knowledge as it pertains different dimensions of research to practice. This was undertaken during a national MNCH stakeholders' engagement event convened under the auspices of the West African Health Organization (WAHO) and the Federal Ministry of Health (FMoH) in Abuja, Nigeria. A questionnaire was administered to participants, which was designed to assess participants' knowledge, capacity and organizational process of generation, synthesis and utilization of research evidence in policy-making regarding MNCH.A total of 40 participants signed the informed consent form and completed the questionnaire. The mean ratings (MNRs) of participants' knowledge of electronic databases and capacity to identify and obtain relevant research evidence from electronic databases ranged from 3.62-3.68 on the scale of 5. The MNRs of participants' level of understanding of a policy brief, a policy dialogue and the role of researchers in policy-making ranged from 3.50-3.86. The MNRs of participants' level of understanding of evidence in policy-making context, types and sources of evidence, capacity to identify, select, adapt, and transform relevant evidence into policy ranged from 3.63-4.08. The MNRs of the participants' organization's capacity to cover their geographical areas of operation were generally low ranging from 3.32-3.38 in terms of manpower, logistics, facilities, and external support. The lowest MNR of 2.66 was recorded in funding.The outcomes of this study suggest that a stakeholders' engagement event can serve as an important platform to assess policy-makers' knowledge and capacity for evidence-informed policy-making and for the promotion of evidence use in the policy process.

Dataset Information

Communicating evidence-based information on cancer prevention to state-level policy makers.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Communicating evidence-based information on cancer prevention to state-level policy makers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets