Communicating Evidence-Based Information on Cancer Prevention to State-Level Policy Makers

Brownson, Ross C.; Dodson, Elizabeth A.; Stamatakis, Katherine A.; Casey, Christopher; Elliott, Michael; Luke, Douglas A.; Wintrode, Christopher G.; Kreuter, Matthew W.

doi:10.1093/jnci/djq529

Cited by 71 publications

(147 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

138

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This work was part of a study designed to increase the dissemination of evidence-based interventions to control cancer, focusing on the uptake of effective environmental and policy approaches among statelevel policymakers [6]. To better understand quantitative data collected in the study's first phase and to address study research questions, the research team decided to conduct a set of key-informant interviews with state legislators.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Linking research evidence to direct impacts, costs and benefits has been identified as a facilitator to incorporating evidence into policy, whereas low quantity, quality, accessibility and usability of evidence are known barriers [5][6][7][8][9]. Other barriers to the inclusion of research in the policymaking process include differences in decision making (between researchers and policymakers), poor timing, ambiguous findings, information overload and lack of relevant data [10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The best ways to share information with policymakers have also been studied. There is evidence suggesting that no 'one-size fits all' approach exists when delivering information to policymakers; rather, information should be tailored to the type of policymaker [6,15]. Most policymakers, bombarded with information from a variety of sources, prefer information to be concise and relevant to current debates [14].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study builds upon current knowledge about what types of information state legislators look for when working on health issues (e.g. types of data, anecdotal stories) [6]. It explores the kinds of information state legislators seek when working on health policy issues, which sources they find most trustworthy, and ways researchers or universities could provide this information that would be more useful to legislators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

State legislators’ sources and use of information: bridging the gap between research and policy

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research can inform policymakers of public health issues and shape policy decisions, hopefully benefiting public health; thus, improving dissemination of research to policymakers is important for developing effective public health policies that improve health and health equity. However, the utilization of research among policymakers is often not fully realized. This study builds upon current knowledge about what types of information legislators seek when working on health issues and where they go for information. Further, it explores what kinds of information legislators find most helpful and if there are ways researchers could better provide this evidence. Key-informant interviews were conducted with 25 U.S. state legislators holding health committee leadership positions between July and November, 2010. Regarding types of information sought, most legislators discussed their desire for data and statistics when working on healthrelated issues. When asked about their most trusted sources of information, participants mentioned government sources as well as advocacy, lobby and industry groups. A few mentioned universities and healthcare professionals. Results from this study offer public health researchers and practitioners' insights into the types of information that may be most helpful to policymakers. Insights gathered may improve the dissemination of research and bridge the gap between knowledge users and knowledge producers.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

State legislators’ sources and use of information: bridging the gap between research and policy

2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…28 An effective policy brief has been described as one that makes the evidence concise and understand able; explains why the evidence is important; and describes evidence-informed policy options that would be suitable actions for policy-makers to take. [29][30][31] With a problem clarified in a policy brief, what is known and not known about the options clearly described, and key implementation considerations clearly flagged, policy-makers may be more readily able to identify viable ways forward. 28 It is pertinent to state that despite the existence and importance of effective evidence-packaging mechanisms such as policy briefs in the promotion of EIP, most policymakers particularly in LMICs lack the capacity to develop and use them.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the Capacity of Policy-Makers to Develop Evidence-Informed Policy Brief on Infectious Diseases of Poverty in Nigeria

Uneke

Ezeoha

Uro-Chukwu

et al. 2015

Int J Health Policy Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The lack of effective use of research evidence in policy-making is a major challenge in most low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is need to package research data into effective policy tools that will help policy-makers to make evidence-informed policy regarding infectious diseases of poverty (IDP). The objective of this study was to assess the usefulness of training workshops and mentoring to enhance the capacity of Nigerian health policy-makers to develop evidence-informed policy brief on the control of IDP. Methods: A modified "before and after" intervention study design was used in which outcomes were measured on the target participants both before the intervention is implemented and after. A 4-point Likert scale according to the degree of adequacy; 1 = "grossly inadequate, " 4 = "very adequate" was employed. The main parameter measured was participants' perceptions of their own knowledge/understanding. This study was conducted at subnational level and the participants were the career health policy-makers drawn from Ebonyi State in the South-Eastern Nigeria. A oneday evidence-to-policy workshop was organized to enhance the participants' capacity to develop evidence-informed policy brief on IDP in Ebonyi State. Topics covered included collaborative initiative; preparation and use of policy briefs; policy dialogue; ethics in health policy-making; and health policy and politics. Results: The preworkshop mean of knowledge and capacity ranged from 2.49-3.03, while the postworkshop mean ranged from 3.42-3.78 on 4-point scale. The percentage increase in mean of knowledge and capacity at the end of the workshop ranged from 20.10%-45%. Participants were divided into 3 IDP mentorship groups (malaria, schistosomiasis, lymphatic filariasis [LF]) and were mentored to identify potential policy options/recommendations for control of the diseases for the policy briefs. These policy options were subjected to research evidence synthesis by each group to identify the options that have the support of research evidence (mostly systematic reviews) from PubMed, Cochrane database and Google Scholar. After the evidence synthesis, five policy options were selected out of 13 for malaria, 3 out of 10 for schistosomiasis and 5 out of 11 for LF. Conclusion:The outcome suggests that an evidence-to-policy capacity enhancement workshop combined with a mentorship programme can improve policy-makers' capacity for evidence-informed policy-making (EIP). Implications for policy makers• Policy-makers need to have access to the right information on infectious diseases of poverty (IDP) at the right time to inform decisions that draw on the evidence of what works. There are numerous reports which have shown that the availability of timely, suitably packaged and policy relevant research evidence is important in supporting increased use of research evidence in the policy processes. • Policy-makers' knowledge and capacity to develop evidence-informed policy materials such as policy briefs can be enhanced via evidence-top...

show abstract

Disseminating Evidence to Policymakers: Accounting for Audience Heterogeneity

Purtle

2021

Networks, Knowledge Brokers, and the Public Policymaking Process

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Communicating Evidence-Based Information on Cancer Prevention to State-Level Policy Makers

Abstract: 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.

Cited by 71 publications

References 66 publications

State legislators’ sources and use of information: bridging the gap between research and policy

State legislators’ sources and use of information: bridging the gap between research and policy

Enhancing the Capacity of Policy-Makers to Develop Evidence-Informed Policy Brief on Infectious Diseases of Poverty in Nigeria

Disseminating Evidence to Policymakers: Accounting for Audience Heterogeneity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About