The power of lived experience in optimizing US policymakers’ engagement with substance use research: A series of rapid-cycle randomized controlled trials

Elizabeth C. Long , Riley Loria , Jessica Pugel , Patrick O’Neill , Camille C. Cioffi , Charleen Hsuan , Glenn Sterner , D. Max Crowley , J. Taylor Scott
{"title":"The power of lived experience in optimizing US policymakers’ engagement with substance use research: A series of rapid-cycle randomized controlled trials","authors":"Elizabeth C. Long ,&nbsp;Riley Loria ,&nbsp;Jessica Pugel ,&nbsp;Patrick O’Neill ,&nbsp;Camille C. Cioffi ,&nbsp;Charleen Hsuan ,&nbsp;Glenn Sterner ,&nbsp;D. Max Crowley ,&nbsp;J. Taylor Scott","doi":"10.1016/j.dadr.2024.100299","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Research can inform policies on substance use/substance use disorders (SU/SUDs), yet there is limited experimental investigation into strategies for optimizing policymakers’ engagement with SU/SUD research. This study tested the use of narratives to boost policymakers’ research engagement.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In five rapid-cycle randomized controlled trials, SU/SUD research fact sheets were emailed to US legislative policymakers. We tested the use of narratives on the number of email opens, fact sheet clicks, and replies, relative to control emails without narratives. Narratives described lived experience with SU/SUD or motivations to study SU/SUD. The sender was a person with lived experience who authored the narrative or an author of the fact sheet.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>When the narrative was about the sender’s <em>own</em> lived experience (Trial 1), or when the narrative was about the sender's motivations to study SU/SUDs (Trial 2), the fact sheet was clicked more than the control (<em>p</em>=.049; <em>p</em>=.012; respectively). When the narrative was about someone <em>else’s</em> experience (Trials 3 and 4), the email was opened (<em>p’s</em>&lt;.001) and replied to (<em>p’s</em>&lt;.001) less, and the fact sheet was clicked (<em>p’s</em>&lt;.001) less. Lastly, emails with lived experience narratives were replied to more than the control, regardless of sender (fact sheet author: <em>p</em>=.028; narrative author: <em>p</em>=.002; Trial 5), but were opened more if the sender authored the narrative (<em>p</em>&lt;.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Policymakers’ engagement with SU/SUD research generally increased when the sender was telling their own story. This work highlights the power of people with lived experience and informs strategies for optimizing policymakers’ engagement with SU/SUD research.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":72841,"journal":{"name":"Drug and alcohol dependence reports","volume":"13 ","pages":"Article 100299"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drug and alcohol dependence reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772724624000830","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Research can inform policies on substance use/substance use disorders (SU/SUDs), yet there is limited experimental investigation into strategies for optimizing policymakers’ engagement with SU/SUD research. This study tested the use of narratives to boost policymakers’ research engagement.

Methods

In five rapid-cycle randomized controlled trials, SU/SUD research fact sheets were emailed to US legislative policymakers. We tested the use of narratives on the number of email opens, fact sheet clicks, and replies, relative to control emails without narratives. Narratives described lived experience with SU/SUD or motivations to study SU/SUD. The sender was a person with lived experience who authored the narrative or an author of the fact sheet.

Results

When the narrative was about the sender’s own lived experience (Trial 1), or when the narrative was about the sender's motivations to study SU/SUDs (Trial 2), the fact sheet was clicked more than the control (p=.049; p=.012; respectively). When the narrative was about someone else’s experience (Trials 3 and 4), the email was opened (p’s<.001) and replied to (p’s<.001) less, and the fact sheet was clicked (p’s<.001) less. Lastly, emails with lived experience narratives were replied to more than the control, regardless of sender (fact sheet author: p=.028; narrative author: p=.002; Trial 5), but were opened more if the sender authored the narrative (p<.001).

Conclusions

Policymakers’ engagement with SU/SUD research generally increased when the sender was telling their own story. This work highlights the power of people with lived experience and informs strategies for optimizing policymakers’ engagement with SU/SUD research.
生活经验在优化美国决策者参与药物使用研究方面的力量:一系列快速循环随机对照试验
背景研究可以为有关药物使用/药物使用失调(SU/SUDs)的政策提供信息,但有关优化政策制定者参与 SU/SUD 研究的策略的实验调查却很有限。本研究测试了如何使用叙述来提高政策制定者的研究参与度。方法在五项快速循环随机对照试验中,通过电子邮件将 SU/SUD 研究概况介绍发送给美国立法政策制定者。我们测试了相对于无叙述的对照邮件,使用叙述对邮件打开、概况介绍点击和回复数量的影响。叙述描述了 SU/SUD 的生活经历或研究 SU/SUD 的动机。结果当叙述的是发件人自己的亲身经历时(试验 1),或叙述的是发件人研究 SU/SUD 的动机时(试验 2),事实表的点击率高于对照组(p=.049;p=.012;分别为)。当叙述的是他人的经历时(试验 3 和试验 4),电子邮件的打开率(p's< .001)和回复率(p's< .001)都较低,情况说明的点击率(p's< .001)也较低。最后,无论发件人是谁,带有真实经历叙述的电子邮件都比对照组得到更多回复(概况介绍作者:p=.028;叙述作者:p=.002;试验 5),但如果发件人是叙述的作者,则被打开的次数更多(p< .001)。这项工作凸显了有亲身经历者的力量,并为优化决策者参与 SU/SUD 研究的策略提供了参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Drug and alcohol dependence reports
Drug and alcohol dependence reports Psychiatry and Mental Health
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
100 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信