Smith Natalie Riva, Levy Douglas E, Falbe Jennifer, Purtle Jonathan, Chriqui Jamie F
Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, United States.
Mongan Institute Health Policy Research Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.
Front Health Serv. 2024 Jul 15;4:1322702. doi: 10.3389/frhs.2024.1322702. eCollection 2024.
Typical quantitative evaluations of public policies treat policies as a binary condition, without further attention to how policies are implemented. However, policy implementation plays an important role in how the policy impacts behavioral and health outcomes. The field of policy-focused implementation science is beginning to consider how policy implementation may be conceptualized in quantitative analyses (e.g., as a mediator or moderator), but less work has considered how to measure policy implementation for inclusion in quantitative work. To help address this gap, we discuss four design considerations for researchers interested in developing or identifying measures of policy implementation using three independent NIH-funded research projects studying e-cigarette, food, and mental health policies. Mini case studies of these considerations were developed via group discussions; we used the implementation research logic model to structure our discussions. Design considerations include (1) clearly specifying the implementation logic of the policy under study, (2) developing an interdisciplinary team consisting of policy practitioners and researchers with expertise in quantitative methods, public policy and law, implementation science, and subject matter knowledge, (3) using mixed methods to identify, measure, and analyze relevant policy implementation determinants and processes, and (4) building flexibility into project timelines to manage delays and challenges due to the real-world nature of policy. By applying these considerations in their own work, researchers can better identify or develop measures of policy implementation that fit their needs. The experiences of the three projects highlighted in this paper reinforce the need for high-quality and transferrable measures of policy implementation, an area where collaboration between implementation scientists and policy experts could be particularly fruitful. These measurement practices provide a foundation for the field to build on as attention to incorporating measures of policy implementation into quantitative evaluations grows and will help ensure that researchers are developing a more complete understanding of how policies impact health outcomes.
对公共政策的典型定量评估将政策视为一种二元条件，而没有进一步关注政策是如何实施的。然而，政策实施在政策如何影响行为和健康结果方面起着重要作用。以政策为重点的实施科学领域开始考虑如何在定量分析中将政策实施概念化（例如，作为一个中介变量或调节变量），但较少有研究考虑如何测量政策实施以便纳入定量研究。为了帮助填补这一空白，我们利用美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）资助的三个分别研究电子烟、食品和心理健康政策的独立研究项目，讨论了对有兴趣开发或确定政策实施测量方法的研究人员的四个设计考量。通过小组讨论形成了这些考量的小型案例研究；我们使用实施研究逻辑模型来组织讨论。设计考量包括：（1）明确规定所研究政策的实施逻辑；（2）组建一个跨学科团队，成员包括政策从业者以及在定量方法、公共政策与法律、实施科学和主题知识方面具有专业知识的研究人员；（3）使用混合方法来识别、测量和分析相关的政策实施决定因素和过程；（4）在项目时间表中建立灵活性，以应对由于政策的现实性质而导致的延误和挑战。通过在自己的工作中应用这些考量，研究人员可以更好地识别或开发适合其需求的政策实施测量方法。本文所强调的三个项目的经验强化了对高质量且可转移的政策实施测量方法的需求，在这一领域，实施科学家与政策专家之间的合作可能会特别富有成效。随着将政策实施测量方法纳入定量评估的关注度不断提高，这些测量实践为该领域奠定了基础，并将有助于确保研究人员对政策如何影响健康结果形成更全面的理解。
