Evidence-based policymaking has the potential to improve the efficiency and impact of climate mitigation and adaptation policies, but that promise cannot be fulfilled if policymakers fail to change their minds (update their beliefs) when presented with new evidence. Research suggests that individuals often resist changing their mind, especially on polarized topics like climate action. Here we explore whether an “evidence-based policymaker” intervention can reduce resistance when policymakers interpret new information. We hypothesize that, if policymakers wish to see themselves as "evidence-based", reminding them of that identity can make changing their beliefs more comfortable. This is because belief-updating provides an opportunity to affirm their identity as an evidence-based policymaker. In two survey studies of state and local U.S. policymakers – a neutral policy pilot (n = 152) and a polarizing climate policy experiment (n = 356) – we show that the intervention was effective, even when evidence was incompatible with prior policy beliefs or party ideology. This finding suggests that making evidence-based identities salient when presenting new evidence could increase that information’s impact on climate policymaking.

Background Mixed data exist regarding the association between hyperglycemia and functional outcome after acute ischemic stroke when accounting for the impact of leptomeningeal collateral flow. We sought to determine whether collateral status modifies the association between treatment group and functional outcome in a subset of patients with large vessel occlusion enrolled in the Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) trial. Methods In this post-hoc analysis, we analyzed patients enrolled into the SHINE trial with anterior circulation large vessel occlusion who underwent imaging with CT angiography prior to glucose control treatment group assignment. The primary analysis assessed the degree to which collateral status modified the effect between treatment group and functional outcome as defined by the 90-day modified Rankin Scale score. Logistic regression was used to model the data, with adjustments made for thrombectomy status, age, post-perfusion thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) score, tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) use, and baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score. Five SHINE trial centers contributed data for this analysis. Statistical significance was defined as a p-value < 0.05. Results Among the 1151 patients in the SHINE trial, 57 with angiographic data were included in this sub-analysis, of whom 19 had poor collaterals and 38 had good collaterals. While collateral status had no effect (p = 0.855) on the association between glucose control treatment group and functional outcome, patients with good collaterals were more likely to have a favorable functional outcome (p = 0.001, OR 5.02; 95% CI 1.37–16.0). Conclusions In a post-hoc analysis using a subset of patients with angiographic data enrolled in the SHINE trial, collateral status did not modify the association between glucose control treatment group and functional outcome. However, consistent with prior studies, there was a significant association between good collateral status and favorable outcome in patients with large vessel occlusion stroke. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier is NCT01369069. Registration date is June 8, 2011.

No abstract