Am J Epidemiol. 2023 Aug 4;192(8):1243-1248. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwad078.
Epidemiologic evidence is often a key source of information used by expert committees to guide policy decisions, yet epidemiologists rarely consider this audience for their research. For a better understanding of the pipeline from epidemiologic research to expert committee assessment to policy, several reports from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine were reviewed and discussed with staff and committee members. The topics of these consensus committee assessments included health behaviors, medical care, and military exposures. The focus was often on emerging issues of immediate concern for which there was little relevant research available but a need for prompt action. Committees generally sought a comprehensive assessment of potential health effects of a given product or exposure, which often included social and behavioral health outcomes that are rarely addressed by epidemiologists. To enhance epidemiology's contribution to societal decisions, the choice of research topics should expand to consider emerging societal concerns. Research funding agencies need to be engaged as mediators between committee needs and the research community to stimulate contributory research. Improved communication of research needs to the epidemiology community would be beneficial to researchers aspiring to have an impact and to those who use epidemiologic information to help guide policy decisions.
流行病学证据通常是专家委员会用来指导政策决策的重要信息来源，但流行病学家很少考虑将其研究成果提供给这一受众。为了更好地了解从流行病学研究到专家委员会评估再到政策的转化过程，对美国国家科学院、工程院和医学院的几份报告进行了审查，并与工作人员和委员会成员进行了讨论。这些共识委员会评估的主题包括健康行为、医疗保健和军事暴露。重点通常是那些对流行病学研究来说很少有相关研究，但需要迅速采取行动的新兴问题。委员会通常寻求对特定产品或暴露的潜在健康影响进行全面评估，其中通常包括社会和行为健康结果，而这些结果很少被流行病学家所关注。为了增强流行病学对社会决策的贡献，应该扩大研究课题的选择范围，以考虑新兴的社会关注。研究资助机构需要作为委员会需求和研究界之间的调解者，以激发相关研究。向流行病学界更好地传达研究需求将有利于有志于产生影响的研究人员，以及那些利用流行病学信息帮助指导政策决策的人员。
