Ashtari Neda, Abbasi Justin, Barnert Elizabeth
UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, USA.
Department of Internal Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, 90048, USA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2024 Jul;39(9):1704-1712. doi: 10.1007/s11606-023-08547-z. Epub 2023 Dec 15.
Bridging the translational gap between research evidence and health policy in state legislatures requires understanding the institutional barriers and facilitators to non-partisan research evidence use. Previous studies have identified individual-level barriers and facilitators to research evidence use, but limited perspectives exist on institutional factors within legislatures that influence non-partisan research evidence use in health policymaking.
We describe the perspectives of California state legislators and legislative staff on institutional barriers and facilitators of non-partisan research evidence use in health policymaking and explore potential solutions for enhancing use.
Case study design involving qualitative interviews.
We interviewed 24 California state legislators, legislative office staff, and legislative research staff.
Semi-structured recorded interviews were conducted in person or by phone to identify opportunities for enhancing non-partisan research evidence use within state legislatures. We conducted thematic analyses of interview transcripts to identify (1) when research evidence is used during the policymaking process, (2) barriers and facilitators operating at the institutional level, and (3) potential solutions for enhancing evidence use.
Institutional barriers to non-partisan research evidence use in health policymaking were grouped into three themes: institutional policies, practices, and priorities. Interviews also revealed institutional-level facilitators of research evidence use, including (1) access and capacity to engage with research evidence, and (2) perceived credibility of research evidence. The most widely supported institutional-level solution for enhancing evidence-based health policymaking in state legislatures involved establishing independent, impartial research entities to provide legislators with trusted evidence to inform decision-making.
Potential institutional-level changes within state legislatures may enhance evidence use in health policymaking, leading to improved health outcomes and lower healthcare costs for states.
弥合州立法机构中研究证据与卫生政策之间的转化差距，需要了解无党派研究证据使用的制度障碍和促进因素。以往的研究已经确定了个人层面上研究证据使用的障碍和促进因素，但对于立法机构内部影响卫生政策制定中无党派研究证据使用的制度因素，相关观点有限。
我们描述了加利福尼亚州立法者和立法工作人员对卫生政策制定中无党派研究证据使用的制度障碍和促进因素的看法，并探讨加强使用的潜在解决方案。
采用涉及定性访谈的案例研究设计。
我们采访了24位加利福尼亚州的立法者、立法办公室工作人员和立法研究人员。
通过面对面或电话进行半结构化录音访谈，以确定在州立法机构内加强无党派研究证据使用的机会。我们对访谈记录进行了主题分析，以确定：（1）在政策制定过程中何时使用研究证据；（2）在机构层面起作用的障碍和促进因素；（3）加强证据使用的潜在解决方案。
卫生政策制定中无党派研究证据使用的制度障碍可归纳为三个主题：制度政策、实践和优先事项。访谈还揭示了研究证据使用的机构层面促进因素，包括：（1）接触和运用研究证据的机会与能力；（2）研究证据的可信度。在州立法机构中，加强循证卫生政策制定最受支持的机构层面解决方案是建立独立、公正的研究实体，为立法者提供可信的证据以辅助决策。
州立法机构内部潜在的制度层面变革可能会加强卫生政策制定中的证据使用，从而改善健康结果并降低各州的医疗成本。
