Literature DB >> 21212381

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

Ross C Brownson1, Elizabeth A Dodson, Katherine A Stamatakis, Christopher M Casey, Michael B Elliott, Douglas A Luke, Christopher G Wintrode, Matthew W Kreuter.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21212381      PMCID: PMC3039727          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djq529

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  61 in total

1.  How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers?

Authors:  John N Lavis; Dave Robertson; Jennifer M Woodside; Christopher B McLeod; Julia Abelson
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.911

2.  Perspectives of the legislator: allocating resources.

Authors:  W A Sederburg
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 17.586

3.  Better knowledge translation for effective cancer control: a priority for action.

Authors:  Eva Grunfeld; Louise Zitzelsberger; William K Evans; Roy Cameron; Charles Hayter; Neil Berman; Hartley Stern
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.506

4.  Local knowledge to enable local action.

Authors:  Jonathan E Fielding; Thomas R Frieden
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 5.043

5.  Physical inactivity and overweight among Los Angeles County adults.

Authors:  Antronette K Yancey; Cheryl M Wold; William J McCarthy; Mark D Weber; Benedict Lee; Paul A Simon; Jonathan E Fielding
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  Disaggregating data on Asian and Pacific Islander women to assess cancer screening.

Authors:  Judy Y Chen; Allison L Diamant; Marjorie Kagawa-Singer; Nadereh Pourat; Cheryl Wold
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 5.043

7.  State health agencies and the legislative policy process.

Authors:  S M Williams-Crowe; T V Aultman
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  1994 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.792

Review 8.  The history of breast cancer advocacy.

Authors:  Susan Braun
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2003 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.431

9.  The politics of local tobacco control.

Authors:  B Samuels; S A Glantz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1991-10-16       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  A test of conversational and testimonial messages versus didactic presentations of nutrition information.

Authors:  Michael D Slater; David B Buller; Emily Waters; Margarita Archibeque; Michelle LeBlanc
Journal:  J Nutr Educ Behav       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 3.045

View more
  37 in total

1.  State legislators' sources and use of information: bridging the gap between research and policy.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Dodson; Nora A Geary; Ross C Brownson
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2015-10-13

2.  Dissemination and Implementation Science Training Needs: Insights From Practitioners and Researchers.

Authors:  Rachel G Tabak; Margaret M Padek; Jon F Kerner; Kurt C Stange; Enola K Proctor; Maureen J Dobbins; Graham A Colditz; David A Chambers; Ross C Brownson
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Use of research evidence in state policymaking for childhood obesity prevention in Minnesota.

Authors:  Sarah E Gollust; Hanna A Kite; Sara J Benning; Rachel A Callanan; Susan R Weisman; Marilyn S Nanney
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2014-08-14       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Setting the agenda for a healthy retail environment: content analysis of US newspaper coverage of tobacco control policies affecting the point of sale, 2007-2014.

Authors:  Allison E Myers; Brian G Southwell; Kurt M Ribisl; Sarah Moreland-Russell; Leslie A Lytle
Journal:  Tob Control       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 7.552

5.  State mental health agency officials' preferences for and sources of behavioral health research.

Authors:  Jonathan Purtle; Félice Lê-Scherban; Katherine L Nelson; Paul T Shattuck; Enola K Proctor; Ross C Brownson
Journal:  Psychol Serv       Date:  2019-06-13

6.  State Legislators' Support for Behavioral Health Parity Laws: The Influence of Mutable and Fixed Factors at Multiple Levels.

Authors:  Jonathan Purtle; Félice Lê-Scherban; X I Wang; Paul T Shattuck; Enola K Proctor; Ross C Brownson
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2019-11-11       Impact factor: 4.911

7.  State legislators' work on public health-related issues: what influences priorities?

Authors:  Elizabeth A Dodson; Katherine A Stamatakis; Stephanie Chalifour; Debra Haire-Joshu; Timothy McBride; Ross C Brownson
Journal:  J Public Health Manag Pract       Date:  2013 Jan-Feb

8.  Municipal Officials' Participation in Built Environment Policy Development in the United States.

Authors:  Stephenie C Lemon; Karin Valentine Goins; Kristin L Schneider; Ross C Brownson; Cheryl A Valko; Kelly R Evenson; Amy A Eyler; Katie M Heinrich; Jill Litt; Rodney Lyn; Hannah L Reed; Nancy O'Hara Tompkins; Jay Maddock
Journal:  Am J Health Promot       Date:  2014-11-05

9.  Uses of Research Evidence by State Legislators Who Prioritize Behavioral Health Issues.

Authors:  Jonathan Purtle; Elizabeth A Dodson; Ross C Brownson
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 3.084

10.  Framing research for state policymakers who place a priority on cancer.

Authors:  Ross C Brownson; Elizabeth A Dodson; Jon F Kerner; Sarah Moreland-Russell
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 2.506

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.