SciComm Optimizer for Policy Engagement: a randomized controlled trial of the SCOPE model on state legislators' research use in public discourse

Communicating with policy makers about climate change, health, and their intersection: a scoping review

Ambitious policies are urgently needed to protect human health from the impacts of climate change. Civil society, including researchers and advocates, can help advance such policies by communicating with policy makers. In this scoping review, we examined what is known about effectively communicating with policy makers to encourage them to act on public health, climate change, or their nexus. We analysed 139 studies published in the literature on health, climate, and their intersection that focused on strategies for communicating with policy makers. Among many other recommendations, the most frequently recommended communication strategies were to tailor messaging to target audiences; share accessible, concise, and timely evidence; and build coalitions and trusted relationships. The studies were largely about health communication to policy makers, were predominantly based in high-income countries, and most frequently used case studies, interviews, and surveys as methods. Further experimental research is needed to test the findings generated by non-experimental methods. Additionally, future research should seek to generate and test communication strategies in more low-income and middle-income countries. Based on this literature, we have produced a list of strategic questions that communicators might wish to consider as they prepare to communicate with policy makers.

The power of lived experience in optimizing US policymakers' engagement with substance use research: A series of rapid-cycle randomized controlled trials

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.

Shifting the paradigm of research-to-policy impact: Infrastructure for improving researcher engagement and collective action

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.

Bridging Public Health Research and State-Level Policy: The Texas Research-to-Policy Collaboration Project

Purpose and Objectives

Significant barriers to the implementation of evidence-based policy exist. Establishing an infrastructure and resources to support this process at the state level can accelerate the translation of research into practice. This study describes the adaptation and initial evaluation of the Texas Research-to-Policy Collaboration (TX RPC) Project, focusing on the adaptation process, legislative public health policy priorities, and baseline researcher policy knowledge and self-efficacy.

Intervention Approach

The federal Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) method was adapted to the Texas legislative process in 2020. Policymakers and public health researchers were recruited using direct outreach and referrals. Legislators or their aides were interviewed to determine health policy needs, which directed the development of legislator resources, webinars, and recruitment of additional public health researchers with specific expertise. Researchers were trained to facilitate communication with policymakers, and TX RPC Project staff facilitated legislator and researcher meetings to provide data and policy input.

Evaluation Methods

Baseline surveys were completed with legislators to assess the use of health researchers in policy. Surveys were also administered before training to researchers assessing self-efficacy, knowledge, and training needs. Qualitative data from the legislator interviews were analyzed using inductive and deductive approaches. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for scales and individual survey items.

Results

Legislative offices (n = 21) identified health care access, mental health, and health disparities as key health issues. Legislators reported that health data were important but did not actively involve researchers in legislation. Researchers (n = 73) reported that policy informed their work but had low engagement with legislators. Researcher training surveys indicated lower policy self-efficacy and knowledge and the need for additional training.

Implications for Public Health

Adaptation of the RPC model for state-level health policy is feasible but necessitates logistical changes based on the unique legislative body. Researchers need training and resources to engage with policymakers.

Operational and organizational variation in determinants of policy implementation success: the case of policies that earmark taxes for behavioral health services

BACKGROUND

Research on determinants of health policy implementation is limited, and conceptualizations of evidence and implementation success are evolving in the field. This study aimed to identify determinants of perceived policy implementation success and assess whether these determinants vary according to: (1) how policy implementation success is operationally defined [i.e., broadly vs. narrowly related to evidence-based practice (EBP) reach] and (2) the role of a person's organization in policy implementation. The study focuses on policies that earmark taxes for behavioral health services.

METHODS

Web-based surveys of professionals involved with earmarked tax policy implementation were conducted between 2022 and 2023 (N = 272). The primary dependent variable was a 9-item score that broadly assessed perceptions of the tax policy positively impacting multiple dimensions of outcomes. The secondary dependent variable was a single item that narrowly assessed perceptions of the tax policy increasing EBP reach. Independent variables were scores mapped to determinants in the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Multiple linear regression estimated associations between measures of determinants and policy implementation success.

RESULTS

Perceptions of tax attributes (innovation determinant), tax EBP implementation climate (inner-context determinant), and inter-agency collaboration in tax policy implementation (outer-context and bridging factor determinant) were significantly associated with perceptions of policy implementation success. However, the magnitude of associations varied according to how success was operationalized and by respondent organization type. For example, the magnitude of the association between tax attributes and implementation success was 42% smaller among respondents at direct service organizations than non-direct service organizations when implementation success was operationalized broadly in terms of generating positive impacts (β = 0.37 vs. β = 0.64), and 61% smaller when success was operationalized narrowly in terms of EBP reach (β = 0.23 vs. β = 0.59). Conversely, when success was operationalized narrowly as EBP reach, the magnitude of the association between EBP implementation climate and implementation success was large and significant among respondents at direct service organizations while it was not significant among respondents from non-direct service organizations (β = 0.48 vs. β=-0.06).

CONCLUSION

Determinants of perceived policy implementation success may vary according to how policy implementation success is defined and the role of a person's organization in policy implementation. This has implications for implementation science and selecting policy implementation strategies.

Use of research evidence in U.S. federal policymaking: A reflexive report on intra-stage mixed methods

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.

Using policy codesign to achieve multi-sector alignment in adolescent behavioral health: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Policymaking is quickly gaining focus in the field of implementation science as a potential opportunity for aligning cross-sector systems and introducing incentives to promote population health, including substance use disorders (SUD) and their prevention in adolescents. Policymakers are seen as holding the necessary levers for realigning service infrastructure to more rapidly and effectively address adolescent behavioral health across the continuum of need (prevention through crisis care, mental health, and SUD) and in multiple locations (schools, primary care, community settings). The difficulty of aligning policy intent, policy design, and successful policy implementation is a well-known challenge in the broader public policy and public administration literature that also affects local behavioral health policymaking. This study will examine a blended approach of coproduction and codesign (i.e., Policy Codesign), iteratively developed over multiple years to address problems in policy formation that often lead to poor implementation outcomes. The current study evaluates this scalable approach using reproducible measures to grow the knowledge base in this field of study.

METHODS

This is a single-arm, longitudinal, staggered implementation study to examine the acceptability and short-term impacts of Policy Codesign in resolving critical challenges in behavioral health policy formation. The aims are to (1) examine the acceptability, feasibility, and reach of Policy Codesign within two geographically distinct counties in Washington state, USA; (2) examine the impact of Policy Codesign on multisector policy development within these counties using social network analysis; and (3) assess the perceived replicability of Policy Codesign among leaders and other staff of policy-oriented state behavioral health intermediary organizations across the USA.

DISCUSSION

This study will assess the feasibility of a specific approach to collaborative policy development, Policy Codesign, in two diverse regions. Results will inform a subsequent multi-state study measuring the impact and effectiveness of this approach for achieving multi-sector and evidence informed policy development in adolescent SUD prevention and treatment.

Four very basic ways to think about policy in implementation science

BACKGROUND

Policy is receiving increasing attention in the field of implementation science. However, there remains a lack of clear, concise guidance about how policy can be conceptualized in implementation science research. Building on Curran's article "Implementation science made too simple"-which defines "the thing" as the intervention, practice, or innovation in need of implementation support-we offer a typology of four very basic ways to conceptualize policy in implementation science research. We provide examples of studies that have conceptualized policy in these different ways and connect aspects of the typology to established frameworks in the field. The typology simplifies and refines related typologies in the field. Four very basic ways to think about policy in implementation science research. 1) Policy as something to adopt: an evidence-supported policy proposal is conceptualized as "the thing" and the goal of research is to understand how policymaking processes can be modified to increase adoption, and thus reach, of the evidence-supported policy. Policy-focused dissemination research is well-suited to achieve this goal. 2) Policy as something to implement: a policy, evidence-supported or not, is conceptualized as "the thing" and the goal of research is to generate knowledge about how policy rollout (or policy de-implementation) can be optimized to maximize benefits for population health and health equity. Policy-focused implementation research is well-suited to achieve this goal. 3) Policy as context to understand: an evidence-supported intervention is "the thing" and policies are conceptualized as a fixed determinant of implementation outcomes. The goal of research is to understand the mechanisms through which policies affect implementation of the evidence-supported intervention. 4) Policy as strategy to use: an evidence-supported intervention is "the thing" and policy is conceptualized as a strategy to affect implementation outcomes. The goal of research is to understand, and ideally test, how policy strategies affect implementation outcomes related to the evidence-supported intervention.

CONCLUSION

Policy can be conceptualized in multiple, non-mutually exclusive ways in implementation science. Clear conceptualizations of these distinctions are important to advancing the field of policy-focused implementation science and promoting the integration of policy into the field more broadly.