Contributions to the literature
-
This is one of the first systematic reviews to synthesize how social policy research evidence is disseminated to US policymakers.
-
Print materials and personal communications were the most commonly used channels to disseminate social policy research to policymakers.
-
Several cross-cutting strategies (e.g., start early, use evidence “champions,” make research products more timely, relevant, and accessible) were identified that are likely to lead to more effective translate of research evidence into the policy making process in the United States.
Background
Methods
Eligibility criteria
Information sources
Search strategy
Selection process
Data synthesis
Results
Descriptive results
Lead author, Year | Theory/framework | Method and sample size | Level and branch of government | Source (i.e., where/who is the information coming from) | Message (i.e., what information is being shared) | Channel (i.e., how is the information getting to the target audience) | Audience (i.e., who is the information going to) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Allen, 2015 [45] | The operationalization framework | Qualitative; 29 Interviews | Local/Municipal | Policymakers and advocates from three cities | Information about needle exchanges | Public education campaign about needle exchange; public pressure put on policymakers’ | Policymakers (broadly defined) |
Austin, 2017 [47] | The 'triggers-to-action' framework | Qualitative (case study) | State; Legislative | An academic-community-government partnership | Harm caused to consumers by dietary supplements for weight loss and muscle building | Peer-reviewed recommendations; Media outreach campaign, via websites, email listservs and social media; Fact sheet, talking points, summary of research, the original legal research article | State legislators |
Brim, 1983 [46] | None | Qualitative (case study) | Other; Legislative | Foundation Reports Child Development | Current state and past trends for children and families; budget analysis; national survey; federal expenditures | Reports; books; collaboration between foundations and the public sector; grants to advocacy organizations; compilation of data | Senate Subcommittee on Children and Youth Hearings |
Brownson, 2011 [38] | None | Quantitative; 291 | State; Executive, Legislative | State-level policy makers | Information about mammography screening | Policy briefs (data/state; data/local; story/state; story/local) | State-level policymakers |
Bumbarger, 2012 [48] | Interactive Systems Framework | Qualitative (case study) | State; Executive | Penn State Prevention Research Center program staff and researchers | Ongoing information about evidence-based practices and policies | One-page fact sheets, PowerPoint presentations, research briefs, short YouTube videos, and infographics | Administrative/Executive Representatives from related offices |
Coffman, 2009 [50] | None | Qualitative (case study) | State; Legislative | CHBRP faculty and staff, who review and synthesize existing literature | Medical effectiveness and costs of interventions | CHBRP medical effectiveness reports | State legislators |
Crowley, 2018 [32] | Research-to-Policy (RPC) Collaboration Model | Mixed Methods; 10 legislative offices and 22 prevention experts were trained | Federal; Legislative | Rapid Response Researcher Network | Research information based on legislative inquiry | In-person meetings and web conferencing | Federal legislative offices; legislators and legislative staff |
Friese, 2009 [27] | Two Communities Theory and Community Dissonance Theory | Qualitative (Interviews); 14 interviews | Federal, State; Executive, Legislative | Researchers who presented at Family Impact Seminars between 1993-2002 | Child support, early childhood education, helping poor children succeed, long-term care, moving families out of poverty, parenting, prescription drugs, and welfare reform | Presenting or testifying before Congress, legislatures, and committees; responding to individual questions from policymakers and staff via phone and email; serving on committees, advisory panels, and task forces; and writing briefs, memoranda, and contract research reports | Legislators, legislative aides, governor's office staff, legislative service agency staff, and agency representatives |
Garcia, 2016 [49] | Consolidated Framework (Damschroder) | Quantitative; 96 | County; Executive | Research Evidence (undefined) | Child welfare practices, mental health, juvenile justice, and other social service areas | Academic journals, training manuals, presentations, consultants, intervention developers, and web-based clearinghouse | County-level executive policymakers |
Hopkins, 2018 [39] | Social Network Theory | Quantitative; 56 CSS members | State; Executive | CSSS leaders and members | Research related to science education policy | Person-to-person exchanges | State education agency leaders |
Jabbar, 2015 [53] | Advocacy Coalition Framework and Operationalization Framework | Qualitative; 53 interviews | State, Local/Municipal; Executive, Legislative | Intermediary organizations, researchers, journalists | Incentive-based reforms for public school systems | Conversations, news stories, press releases, targeted reports, informational cards, blog posts, Twitter | Local, state, and federal policymakers |
Jamieson, 1999 [51] | None | Qualitative (case study) | State; Executive | Analysis of Washington state child welfare data | Foster care, guardianship, and racial differences in foster care system | Publications; presentations to a wide array of audiences; repetition of focused messages via presentations, newsletters, news media, public forums, articles, participation in work groups, meetings with key individuals, and broad distribution of reports; placing the data in a local context | DSHS administration, social workers, legislators, judges, the attorney general, tribal councils and American Indian communities, African American communities, child advocates, court-appointed special advocates, and private agencies |
Lane, 2011 [33] | knowledge-value mapping (KVM) | Other (Comparative effectiveness study design); (spokespeople for) 6 national organizations | Federal; Executive | Academic journals; training programs and conference proceedings; relevant websites; white papers and internal reports from other sources; experts; Assistive technology agencies | Research on assistive technology devices and services | Electronic media (email, listserv, websites); conferences, presentations, workshops; trainings/certificate programs; electronic media (email, listserv, websites); conference proceedings, presentations, and workshops; white papers and position papers; small-group meetings with policy makers and staff members in government agencies | Public policy agencies |
Massell, 2012 [43] | None | Mixed Methods (Interview, Survey); 49 interviews / 300+ surveys | State; Executive | Research; Program evaluation; Research-based guidance; Data on schools in your state; Advice from colleagues within the SEA and external practitioners | Research on improving low-performing schools (broad & generic) | Advice from own colleagues; school data; published original research, research syntheses or summaries, and meta-analyses; results of program evaluations (least often cited) | State education agency leaders |
McBride, 2008 [34] | None | Qualitative (focus groups); 3 groups (17, 20+, 20+) | Federal; Legislative | Researchers | Health services research (broadly) | Brochures, fact sheets, working papers/ reports, policy briefs, PowerPoint presentation slides, press releases, Web sites, and other products (provided by researchers) | National Organizations and congressional staffers |
McGinty, 2019 [35] | Advocacy Coalition Framework | Qualitative (Interviews, Case Study); 25 | Federal, State | Researchers and stakeholders who worked as collaborators in each of the cases | Relevant research for gun policy, opioid policy, and drug control policy | Coalition convening, working groups, sign-on process to endorse recommendations; public release of recommendations; policy dissemination and education via state forums; legislation development; formal policy advocacy; policy implementation support | Policymakers (general) |
McVay, 2016 [31] | None | Quantitative; 266 | State, Local/Municipal; Executive | Public health researchers (General) | Generalized researched findings (no specific topic) | Face-to-face meetings, academic journals, press releases, policy briefs, and media interviews | Local, state, and/or federal public health departments |
Meisel, 2019 [30] | None | Qualitative (interviews); 18 interviews | Federal, State, Other; Other (never specified) | Economic research | Treatment and economic research in substance use disorder | Informal networks with researchers; person-to-person communication; conferences and webinars; literature reviews and summary reports | Policymakers (general) |
Mosley, 2012 [52] | None | Qualitative (Interviews, Observations) ; 38 interviews | State; Executive, Legislative | Co-sponsors of bill (9 organizations) | Cost effectiveness & experiences by youth who age out of foster care | Press releases, press conferences, one-page summaries, and other communications; testimonial evidence | State policymakers |
Nelson, 2009 [54] | Weiss typology | Qualitative (Interviews, Focus Groups); 10 interviews; 55 participants in 5 focus groups | Federal, State, Local/Municipal; Executive, Legislative | Evidence (peer-reviewed and commissioned studies); Organizations and individuals; Publications and conferences; electronic sources | Educational information influential to No Child Left Behind | Newspapers; media reports; constituent feedback; data (state and local databases, evaluation data from previous initiatives, data collected from multiple databases); personal experience and the experience of others from similar schools, districts, and states; and empirical research evidence | Education policymakers, staff, and advocates |
Purtle, 2019 [55] | Weiss typology | Qualitative (Interviews, content analysis of newspaper articles); 44 interviews, unknown # of articles | County; Executive | Published data (County Health Rankings) from the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute | County-level health information | County Health Rankings Report | County Health Department officials |
Sorian, 2002 [58] | None | Qualitative, Quantitative; 292 surveys | State; Legislative, Executive | Publications and conferences; electronic sources; organizations (public and private) and individuals | General health policy issues | Electronic and hard copy print materials | State legislative policymakers |
Valentine, 2014 [41] | None | Qualitative (Interviews, Focus Groups) | State; Executive | Senior advisors from to policymakers from state departments of mental health in management positions and Policy director from a national nonprofit organization | State-level mental health disparities | Mental health care disparity report cards | State mental health executive; audience for mental health care disparity report cards would be state policymakers |
Weiss, 2008 [29] | Weiss typology "Imposed Use" | Qualitative (Interviews); 16 interviews | Federal, State, Local/Municipal; Executive | US Department of Education expert panel | Recommendations for substance abuse prevention programs for implementation in primary and secondary educational settings | List of Exemplary and Promising Prevention Programs | School district stakeholders |
Weissman, 2015 [42] | None | Quantitative; 46 states, 60 (out of 100) directors | State; Executive | Published research; experts; own data; patients | Application of CER coverage decisions | RCTs; Consensus statements; Systematic Reviews; Expert Opinion; Observational studies (own data; other data); patient experience/consumer advocacy | State Medicaid Directors and Pharmacy Directors |
Yanovitsky, 2019 [36] | Message Framing Theory; Weiss typology | Qualitative; Thematic and content analysis of 786 documents | Federal; Legislative | Government, academic, think-tank research, anecdotal evidence, and 'generic' | Research evidence on childhood obesity | Congressional committee hearings & bills | Federal legislators and their staff |
Zelizer, 2018 [44] | None | Quantitative; 74 legislators (1,216 legislator-bill dyads) | State; Legislative | Legislative staffer who worked for the Veterans Caucus | Information on proposed legislation | In-person meeting with one Veterans caucus staffer | State senator or representative |
Model for dissemination of research
Source
Message
Audience
Channel
Effectiveness and lessons learned
Strategy for engaging policymakers | Recommendations for research-policy translation | Barriers to research-policy translation |
---|---|---|
Start early | • Take initiative to contact policymakers [44] | |
Drum up support | • Involve a broad pool of experts [35] • Cultivate broad coalition of supporters [47] | • Policymakers may appear not to value research [28] |
Use research evidence 'champions' or 'brokers' | • Research use 'champions' engage with community stakeholders and policymakers [45] • Intermediary organizations connect “research supply” to “research demand” [53] | • Intermediary individuals or organizations may select or spin research to make their point [45, 52, 53] • Policymakers may have a list of preferred evidence brokers [53] • Basing policy on evidence requires identified 'best evidence', which may reflect bias and favoritism [29] |
Context matters | • Integrate research evidence into broader sociopolitical context [45] • Specify which government office(s) are responsible [47] | • Federally imposed policies (e.g., education) often override local expertise around context and population [29] |
Make research products timely, relevant, and accessible | • Present research in commonly-used formats (e.g., briefs, talking points, videos) [48] • Use clear, careful language [27] • Formalize the organizational / individual process of translating research to policy [32] | • Complexity of research [56] |
Know the players and the process | • Show respect for policymakers' knowledge/experiences [27] • Expand contact and working relationships with end users [34] | • Lack of familiarity with effective dissemination strategies [31] • Lack of financial and institutional support for dissemination [31] |
Miscellaneous | • Approach policy work as an educator rather than as an advocate [27] |