Department of Health Management and Policy, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health (J Purtle and KL Nelson), Philadelphia, Pa.
Department of Health Management and Policy, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health (J Purtle and KL Nelson), Philadelphia, Pa.
Acad Pediatr. 2021 Apr;21(3):529-533. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2020.05.031. Epub 2020 Jun 15.
Advocates must make decisions about the types of evidence they emphasize when communicating to cultivate support for adverse childhood experience (ACE) prevention policies. This study sought to characterize public perceptions of the persuasiveness of 12 ACE evidence statements and assess differences by ideology in the strength of these evidence messages as rationales for ACE prevention policies.
A web-based survey of a nationally representative sample of US adults was conducted using the KnowledgePanel (N = 503, completion rate = 60.5%). Respondents read ACE evidence statements and answered questions about the extent to which each was perceived as persuasive. Data were collected and analyzed in 2019.
The evidence statements perceived as most persuasive (scoring range 3-17) were those about ACEs as risk factors for mental health and substance use conditions (mean = 12.39) and suicide (mean = 12.14); ACEs generating financial costs for society (mean = 12.03); and the consequences of ACEs being preventable by a supportive adult (mean = 11.97). The evidence statements perceived as least persuasive were about ACEs generating health care costs for individuals (mean = 9.42) and ACEs as risk factors for physical health conditions (mean = 9.47). A larger proportion of liberals than conservatives rated every statement as providing a "strong reason" for ACE prevention policies. These differences were largest for evidence about ACEs generating financial costs for society (84.6% vs 42.8%, P < .0001) and socioeconomic disparities in ACEs (65.1% vs 32.9%, P < .0001).
Many ACE evidence statements commonly used in policy advocacy differ from those perceived as most persuasive among a nationally representative sample of US adults.
倡导者在进行沟通时,必须就其强调的证据类型做出决策,以培养对逆境儿童经历(ACE)预防政策的支持。本研究旨在描述公众对 12 种 ACE 证据陈述的说服力的看法,并评估这些证据信息作为 ACE 预防政策的合理性,在意识形态方面的差异。
使用 KnowledgePanel 对美国成年人进行了一项全国代表性样本的网络调查(N=503,完成率为 60.5%)。受访者阅读 ACE 证据陈述,并回答每个陈述被认为具有说服力的程度。数据于 2019 年收集和分析。
被认为最有说服力的证据陈述(评分范围 3-17)是那些关于 ACE 是心理健康和物质使用障碍(均值=12.39)和自杀(均值=12.14)风险因素的陈述;ACE 给社会带来经济成本(均值=12.03);以及可通过支持性成年人预防 ACE(均值=11.97)的后果。被认为最没有说服力的证据陈述是关于 ACE 给个人带来医疗保健成本(均值=9.42)和 ACE 是身体健康状况的风险因素(均值=9.47)的陈述。与保守派相比,更多的自由派人士认为每个陈述都为 ACE 预防政策提供了“强有力的理由”。这些差异在 ACE 给社会带来经济成本(84.6%比 42.8%,P<0.0001)和 ACE 中的社会经济差异(65.1%比 32.9%,P<0.0001)方面最大。
在政策倡导中常用的许多 ACE 证据陈述与美国成年人全国代表性样本中最具说服力的陈述不同。