Purtle Jonathan, Nelson Katherine L, Lê-Scherban Félice, Gollust Sarah E
Department of Public Health Policy & Management, New York University School of Global Public Health, Global Center for Implementation Science, New York, NY, USA.
Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Implement Res Pract. 2023 May 8;4:26334895231172807. doi: 10.1177/26334895231172807. eCollection 2023 Jan-Dec.
Communication research demonstrates that messages often have unintended consequences, but this work has received limited attention in implementation science. This dissemination experiment sought to determine whether state-tailored policy briefs about the behavioral health consequences of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), compared to national policy briefs on the topic, increased state legislators'/staffers' perceptions of the policy brief relevance and parental blame for the consequences of ACEs, and whether effects differed between Democrats and Republicans.
A preregistered, web-based survey experiment with U.S. state legislators/staffers was conducted in 2021 ( = 133). Respondents were randomized to view a policy brief about the behavioral health consequences of ACEs that included state-tailored data (intervention condition) or national data (control condition) and then answered survey questions. Dependent variables were perceived policy brief relevance and parental blame for the consequences of ACEs.
The mean policy brief relevance score was 4.1% higher in the intervention than in the control condition ( = .24), but the mean parental blame score was 16.5% higher ( = .02). When outcomes were dichotomized, 61.2% of respondents in the intervention condition rated parents as "very much to blame" for the consequences of ACEs compared to 37.1% in the control condition ( = .01). When the sample was stratified by political affiliation, the effect of the state-tailored policy brief on parental blame was larger in magnitude among Democrats and not significant among Republicans. The intervention policy brief increased the mean parental blame score by 22.8% among Democrats relative to the control policy brief ( = .007) and doubled the proportion rating parents as "very much to blame" (52.2% vs. 26.1%, = .03).
Despite limited statistical power, state-tailored policy briefs significantly increased state legislators'/staffers' perceptions of parental blame for the behavioral health consequences of ACEs, relative to a policy brief with national data. Unintended messaging effects warrant greater attention in dissemination research and practice.
传播研究表明，信息往往会产生意想不到的后果，但这项工作在实施科学中受到的关注有限。这项传播实验旨在确定，与关于该主题的全国性政策简报相比，针对各州量身定制的关于童年不良经历（ACEs）行为健康后果的政策简报，是否会提高州立法者/工作人员对政策简报相关性的认知以及对ACEs后果的父母责备感，以及民主党人和共和党人之间的影响是否存在差异。
2021年对美国州立法者/工作人员进行了一项预先注册的基于网络的调查实验（n = 133）。受访者被随机分配观看一份关于ACEs行为健康后果的政策简报，其中包括针对各州量身定制的数据（干预组）或全国性数据（对照组），然后回答调查问题。因变量是对政策简报相关性的认知以及对ACEs后果的父母责备感。
干预组的政策简报相关性平均得分比对照组高4.1%（p = 0.24），但父母责备感平均得分高16.5%（p = 0.02）。当将结果二分法化时，干预组中61.2%的受访者认为父母对ACEs的后果“应负很大责任”，而对照组中这一比例为37.1%（p = 0.01）。当按政治派别对样本进行分层时，针对各州量身定制的政策简报对父母责备感的影响在民主党人中更大，在共和党人中不显著。相对于对照政策简报，干预政策简报使民主党人中的父母责备感平均得分提高了22.8%（p = 0.007），并使认为父母“应负很大责任”的比例增加了一倍（52.2%对26.1%，p = 0.03）。
尽管统计效力有限，但相对于包含全国性数据的政策简报，针对各州量身定制的政策简报显著提高了州立法者/工作人员对父母因ACEs行为健康后果而应受责备的认知。意想不到的信息传递效应在传播研究和实践中值得更多关注。
