Division of Health Policy and Management (Drs Jou and Gollust and Ms Walker) and Department of Family Medicine and Community Health (Dr Nanney), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; American Heart Association, Midwest Affiliate, Edina, Minnesota (Dr Callanan); and Public Health Law Center, Mitchell Hamline School of Law, St Paul, Minnesota (Dr Weisman).
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2018 May/Jun;24(3):195-203. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000000637.
Preventing childhood obesity requires innovative, evidence-based policy approaches. This study examines the use of research evidence by obesity policy stakeholders in Minnesota and develops pilot tools for communicating timely evidence to policymakers.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From November 2012 to January 2013, semistructured interviews were conducted with 51 Minnesota stakeholders in childhood obesity prevention. Interviewees included 16 state legislators and staff; 16 personnel from the Minnesota Department of Education, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Department of Transportation; and 19 advocates for and against childhood obesity prevention legislation (response rate = 71%).
Participants were asked their views on 3 themes: (1) Whether and how they used research evidence in their current decision-making processes; (2) barriers to using research evidence for policymaking; and (3) suggestions for improving the evidence translation process. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. A team approach to qualitative analysis was used to summarize themes, compare findings across interviewees' professional roles, and highlight unexpected findings, areas of tension, or illuminating quotes.
Stakeholders used research evidence to support policy decisions, educate the public, and overcome value-based arguments. Common challenges included the amount and complexity of research produced and limited relationships between researchers and decision makers. Responding to interviewee recommendations, we developed and assessed 2 pilot tools: a directory of research experts and a series of research webinars on topics related to childhood obesity. Stakeholders found these materials relevant and high-quality but expressed uncertainty about using them in making policy decisions.
Stakeholders believe that research evidence should inform the design of programs and policies for childhood obesity prevention; however, many lack the time and resources to consult research consistently. Future efforts to facilitate evidence-informed policymaking should emphasize approaches to designing and presenting research that better meets the needs of policy and programmatic decision makers.
预防儿童肥胖需要创新的、基于证据的政策方法。本研究考察了明尼苏达州肥胖政策利益相关者对研究证据的使用情况，并开发了向政策制定者及时传递证据的试点工具。
设计、设置和参与者：2012 年 11 月至 2013 年 1 月，对明尼苏达州 51 名儿童肥胖预防利益相关者进行了半结构式访谈。受访者包括 16 名州议员和工作人员；16 名来自明尼苏达州教育部、明尼苏达州卫生部和明尼苏达州交通部的人员；以及 19 名支持和反对儿童肥胖预防立法的倡导者（回应率=71%）。
参与者被问及他们对 3 个主题的看法：（1）他们是否以及如何在当前的决策过程中使用研究证据；（2）将研究证据用于决策的障碍；以及（3）改善证据转化过程的建议。所有访谈均进行了录音和转录。采用团队方法进行定性分析，以总结主题，比较受访者专业角色的调查结果，并突出意外发现、紧张局势或有启发性的引述。
利益相关者使用研究证据来支持政策决策、教育公众和克服基于价值观的争论。常见的挑战包括研究的数量和复杂性以及研究人员与决策者之间有限的关系。根据受访者的建议，我们开发并评估了 2 个试点工具：研究专家名录和一系列与儿童肥胖相关主题的研究网络研讨会。利益相关者认为这些材料相关且高质量，但对在决策中使用它们表示不确定。
利益相关者认为研究证据应该为儿童肥胖预防计划和政策的设计提供信息；然而，许多人缺乏持续咨询研究的时间和资源。未来促进循证决策的努力应强调设计和呈现研究的方法，以更好地满足政策和计划决策者的需求。
