Brownson Ross C, Dodson Elizabeth A, Kerner Jon F, Moreland-Russell Sarah
Department of Surgery and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Prevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
Cancer Causes Control. 2016 Aug;27(8):1035-41. doi: 10.1007/s10552-016-0771-0. Epub 2016 Jun 14.
Despite the potential for reducing the cancer burden via state policy change, few data exist on how best to disseminate research information to influence state legislators' policy choices. We explored: (1) the relative importance of core framing issues (source, presentation, timeliness) among policymakers who prioritize cancer and those who do not prioritize cancer and (2) the predictors of use of research in policymaking.
Cross-sectional data were collected from US state policymakers (i.e., legislators elected to state houses or senates) from January through October 2012 (n = 862). One-way analysis of variance was performed to investigate the association of the priority of cancer variable with outcome variables. Multivariate logistic regression models examined predictors of the influence of research information.
Legislators who prioritized cancer tended to rate characteristics that make research information useful higher than those who did not prioritize cancer. Among differences that were statistically significant were three items in the "source" domain (relevance, delivered by someone respected, supports one's own position), one item in the "presentation" domain (telling a story related to constituents) and two items in the "timeliness" domain (high current state priority, feasible when information is received). Participants who prioritized cancer risk factors were 80 % more likely to rate research information as one of their top reasons for choosing an issue on which to work.
Our results suggest the importance of narrative forms of communication and that research information needs to be relevant to the policymakers' constituents in a brief, concise format.
尽管通过国家政策变革有潜力减轻癌症负担，但关于如何最好地传播研究信息以影响国家立法者的政策选择的数据却很少。我们探讨了：（1）在将癌症列为优先事项的政策制定者和未将癌症列为优先事项的政策制定者中，核心框架问题（来源、呈现方式、及时性）的相对重要性；（2）政策制定中研究使用情况的预测因素。
2012年1月至10月从美国州政策制定者（即当选为州众议院或参议院的立法者）收集横断面数据（n = 862）。进行单因素方差分析以研究癌症变量优先级与结果变量之间的关联。多变量逻辑回归模型检验了研究信息影响力的预测因素。
将癌症列为优先事项的立法者往往比未将癌症列为优先事项的立法者对使研究信息有用的特征评价更高。在具有统计学意义的差异中，“来源”领域有三项（相关性、由受尊敬的人提供、支持自己的立场），“呈现方式”领域有一项（讲述与选民相关的故事），“及时性”领域有两项（当前国家高度优先、收到信息时可行）。将癌症风险因素列为优先事项的参与者将研究信息列为其选择工作议题的首要原因之一的可能性高80%。
我们的结果表明叙事性沟通形式的重要性，并且研究信息需要以简洁明了的格式与政策制定者的选民相关。
