Scan of CDC Legal Epidemiology Articles, 2011-2015

Martini, Leila; Presley, David; Klieger, Sarah B.; Burris, Scott

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2683585

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This work is inherently transdisciplinary, 5 requiring collaborations that foster innovative and insightful research, and can be challenging, particularly for government programs. 6 For example, tracking legal and policy provisions over time through policy surveillance 7 can be labor-intensive, and policies are not often integrated into existing public health surveillance platforms. Legal evaluations that identify associations between legal levers and health outcomes or ask public health stakeholders about the effects of law on their activities 8 can require statistical software and support, federal approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and other significant resources.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legal Epidemiology: The Science of Law

Ramanathan¹,

Hulkower²,

Holbrook³

et al. 2017

J. Law. Med. Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of legal epidemiology in public health law research has undoubtedly grown over the last five years. Scholars and practitioners together have developed guidance on best practices for the field, including: placing emphasis on transdisciplinary collaborations; creating valid, reliable, and repeatable research; and publishing timely products for use in decision-making and change. Despite the energy and expertise researchers have brought to this important work, they name significant challenges in marshalling the diverse skill sets, quality controls, and funding to implement legal epidemiology activities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has worked to develop cross-cutting research and translation on issues of national priority in legal epidemiology, and has explored ways to overcome some of these challenges. As such, this article describes a case study of the use of law to characterize states' prior authorization policies regarding medication used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), a central component of a broader effort to improve behavior therapy options for young children with ADHD. This article highlights the types of legal epidemiology work we have undertaken, the application of this work to an emerging public health problem, and the lessons learned in creating impactful research for the field.

show abstract