Suppr超能文献

连接公共卫生研究与州级政策:德克萨斯州研究到政策合作项目。

Bridging Public Health Research and State-Level Policy: The Texas Research-to-Policy Collaboration Project.

机构信息

Michael & Susan Dell Center for Healthy Living, 1836 San Jacinto Blvd, Ste 571, Austin, TX 78701 (

The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth Houston) School of Public Health, Austin, Texas.

出版信息

Prev Chronic Dis. 2024 Nov 7;21:E87. doi: 10.5888/pcd21.240171.

Abstract

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

Significant barriers to the implementation of evidence-based policy exist. Establishing an infrastructure and resources to support this process at the state level can accelerate the translation of research into practice. This study describes the adaptation and initial evaluation of the Texas Research-to-Policy Collaboration (TX RPC) Project, focusing on the adaptation process, legislative public health policy priorities, and baseline researcher policy knowledge and self-efficacy.

INTERVENTION APPROACH

The federal Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) method was adapted to the Texas legislative process in 2020. Policymakers and public health researchers were recruited using direct outreach and referrals. Legislators or their aides were interviewed to determine health policy needs, which directed the development of legislator resources, webinars, and recruitment of additional public health researchers with specific expertise. Researchers were trained to facilitate communication with policymakers, and TX RPC Project staff facilitated legislator and researcher meetings to provide data and policy input.

EVALUATION METHODS

Baseline surveys were completed with legislators to assess the use of health researchers in policy. Surveys were also administered before training to researchers assessing self-efficacy, knowledge, and training needs. Qualitative data from the legislator interviews were analyzed using inductive and deductive approaches. Quantitative survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics for scales and individual survey items.

RESULTS

Legislative offices (n = 21) identified health care access, mental health, and health disparities as key health issues. Legislators reported that health data were important but did not actively involve researchers in legislation. Researchers (n = 73) reported that policy informed their work but had low engagement with legislators. Researcher training surveys indicated lower policy self-efficacy and knowledge and the need for additional training.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH

Adaptation of the RPC model for state-level health policy is feasible but necessitates logistical changes based on the unique legislative body. Researchers need training and resources to engage with policymakers.

摘要

目的和目标

实施循证政策存在重大障碍。在州一级建立支持这一进程的基础设施和资源可以加速研究向实践的转化。本研究描述了德克萨斯州研究与政策合作(TX RPC)项目的改编和初步评估,重点介绍了改编过程、立法公共卫生政策重点以及基线研究人员的政策知识和自我效能。

干预方法

2020 年,联邦研究与政策合作(RPC)方法被改编用于德克萨斯州的立法程序。使用直接外联和推荐招募决策者和公共卫生研究人员。对立法者或其助手进行访谈,以确定健康政策需求,从而指导立法者资源、网络研讨会的开发,并招募具有特定专业知识的额外公共卫生研究人员。培训研究人员以促进与决策者的沟通,TX RPC 项目工作人员协助立法者和研究人员会议,提供数据和政策投入。

评估方法

立法者完成了基线调查,以评估在政策中使用健康研究人员的情况。在培训前还对研究人员进行了调查,以评估自我效能、知识和培训需求。使用归纳和演绎方法对来自立法者访谈的定性数据进行分析。使用描述性统计对量表和个别调查项目进行了定量调查数据的分析。

结果

立法办公室(n=21)确定医疗保健获取、心理健康和健康差距为关键健康问题。立法者报告称,健康数据很重要,但并未积极让研究人员参与立法。研究人员(n=73)报告称,政策影响了他们的工作,但与立法者的互动较少。研究人员培训调查表明,政策自我效能和知识较低,需要额外的培训。

对公共卫生的影响

为州级卫生政策改编 RPC 模型是可行的,但需要根据独特的立法机构进行后勤变更。研究人员需要培训和资源来与政策制定者互动。

相似文献

3
Can We Enhance Shared Decision-making for Periacetabular Osteotomy Surgery? A Qualitative Study of Patient Experiences.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025 Jan 1;483(1):120-136. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003198. Epub 2024 Jul 23.
7
Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):96-137. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-1843.
8
How to Implement Digital Clinical Consultations in UK Maternity Care: the ARM@DA Realist Review.
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2025 May 21:1-77. doi: 10.3310/WQFV7425.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Shifting the paradigm of research-to-policy impact: Infrastructure for improving researcher engagement and collective action.
Dev Psychopathol. 2024 Dec;36(5):2324-2337. doi: 10.1017/S0954579424000270. Epub 2024 Mar 22.
2
Four very basic ways to think about policy in implementation science.
Implement Sci Commun. 2023 Sep 12;4(1):111. doi: 10.1186/s43058-023-00497-1.
5
A new measure to understand the role of science in US Congress: lessons learned from the Legislative Use of Research Survey (LURS).
Evid Policy. 2021 Nov;17(4):689-707. doi: 10.1332/174426421x16134931606126. Epub 2021 Mar 12.
6
Lawmakers' use of scientific evidence can be improved.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Mar 2;118(9). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2012955118.
7
A window into youth and family policy: State policymaker views on polarization and research utilization.
Am Psychol. 2021 Oct;76(7):1143-1158. doi: 10.1037/amp0000681. Epub 2020 Sep 24.
8
Children, Families and Poverty: Definitions, Trends, Emerging Science and Implications for Policy.
Soc Policy Rep. 2012 Fall;26(3):1-29. doi: 10.1002/j.2379-3988.2012.tb00072.x. Epub 2012 Sep 1.
9
Bridging the research-policy divide: Pathways to engagement and skill development.
Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2019;89(4):434-441. doi: 10.1037/ort0000389.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验