Unintended consequences of disseminating behavioral health evidence to policymakers: Results from a survey-based experiment.

Implementation research and practice Pub Date : 2023-05-08 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26334895231172807
Jonathan Purtle, Katherine L Nelson, Félice Lê-Scherban, Sarah E Gollust
{"title":"Unintended consequences of disseminating behavioral health evidence to policymakers: Results from a survey-based experiment.","authors":"Jonathan Purtle,&nbsp;Katherine L Nelson,&nbsp;Félice Lê-Scherban,&nbsp;Sarah E Gollust","doi":"10.1177/26334895231172807","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Communication research demonstrates that messages often have unintended consequences, but this work has received limited attention in implementation science. This dissemination experiment sought to determine whether state-tailored policy briefs about the behavioral health consequences of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), compared to national policy briefs on the topic, increased state legislators'/staffers' perceptions of the policy brief relevance and parental blame for the consequences of ACEs, and whether effects differed between Democrats and Republicans.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A preregistered, web-based survey experiment with U.S. state legislators/staffers was conducted in 2021 (<i>n</i>  =  133). Respondents were randomized to view a policy brief about the behavioral health consequences of ACEs that included state-tailored data (intervention condition) or national data (control condition) and then answered survey questions. Dependent variables were perceived policy brief relevance and parental blame for the consequences of ACEs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean policy brief relevance score was 4.1% higher in the intervention than in the control condition (<i>p</i>  =  .24), but the mean parental blame score was 16.5% higher (<i>p</i>  =  .02). When outcomes were dichotomized, 61.2% of respondents in the intervention condition rated parents as \"very much to blame\" for the consequences of ACEs compared to 37.1% in the control condition (<i>p</i>  =  .01). When the sample was stratified by political affiliation, the effect of the state-tailored policy brief on parental blame was larger in magnitude among Democrats and not significant among Republicans. The intervention policy brief increased the mean parental blame score by 22.8% among Democrats relative to the control policy brief (<i>p</i>  =  .007) and doubled the proportion rating parents as \"very much to blame\" (52.2% vs. 26.1%, <i>p</i>  =  .03).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite limited statistical power, state-tailored policy briefs significantly increased state legislators'/staffers' perceptions of parental blame for the behavioral health consequences of ACEs, relative to a policy brief with national data. Unintended messaging effects warrant greater attention in dissemination research and practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":73354,"journal":{"name":"Implementation research and practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/08/ba/10.1177_26334895231172807.PMC10170598.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Implementation research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895231172807","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Communication research demonstrates that messages often have unintended consequences, but this work has received limited attention in implementation science. This dissemination experiment sought to determine whether state-tailored policy briefs about the behavioral health consequences of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), compared to national policy briefs on the topic, increased state legislators'/staffers' perceptions of the policy brief relevance and parental blame for the consequences of ACEs, and whether effects differed between Democrats and Republicans.

Method: A preregistered, web-based survey experiment with U.S. state legislators/staffers was conducted in 2021 (n  =  133). Respondents were randomized to view a policy brief about the behavioral health consequences of ACEs that included state-tailored data (intervention condition) or national data (control condition) and then answered survey questions. Dependent variables were perceived policy brief relevance and parental blame for the consequences of ACEs.

Results: The mean policy brief relevance score was 4.1% higher in the intervention than in the control condition (p  =  .24), but the mean parental blame score was 16.5% higher (p  =  .02). When outcomes were dichotomized, 61.2% of respondents in the intervention condition rated parents as "very much to blame" for the consequences of ACEs compared to 37.1% in the control condition (p  =  .01). When the sample was stratified by political affiliation, the effect of the state-tailored policy brief on parental blame was larger in magnitude among Democrats and not significant among Republicans. The intervention policy brief increased the mean parental blame score by 22.8% among Democrats relative to the control policy brief (p  =  .007) and doubled the proportion rating parents as "very much to blame" (52.2% vs. 26.1%, p  =  .03).

Conclusions: Despite limited statistical power, state-tailored policy briefs significantly increased state legislators'/staffers' perceptions of parental blame for the behavioral health consequences of ACEs, relative to a policy brief with national data. Unintended messaging effects warrant greater attention in dissemination research and practice.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

向决策者传播行为健康证据的意外后果:基于调查的实验结果。
背景:传播研究表明,消息往往会产生意想不到的后果,但这项工作在实现科学中受到的关注有限。这项传播实验试图确定,与关于儿童不良经历的国家政策简报相比,州针对儿童不良经历行为健康后果制定的政策简报是否增加了州立法者/工作人员对政策简报相关性的看法,以及父母对儿童不良经历后果的指责,以及民主党和共和党的效果是否不同。方法:2021年对美国州立法者/工作人员进行了一项预先注册的网络调查实验(n  =  133)。受访者被随机分组,查看关于ACE行为健康后果的政策简报,其中包括州定制数据(干预条件)或国家数据(对照条件),然后回答调查问题。因变量被认为是政策简要相关性和父母对ACE后果的指责。结果:干预组的平均政策简要相关性得分比对照组高4.1%(p  =  .24),但父母指责得分平均高16.5%(p  =  .02)。当结果被二分时,干预条件下61.2%的受访者认为父母对ACE的后果“负有很大责任”,而对照条件下这一比例为37.1%(p  =  .01)。当样本按政治派别进行分层时,州定制的政策简报对父母指责的影响在民主党人中更大,在共和党人中并不显著。与控制政策简报相比,干预政策简报使民主党人的平均父母指责得分增加了22.8%(p  =  .007),将父母评为“非常应该受到责备”的比例增加了一倍(52.2%对26.1%,p  =  .03)。结论:尽管统计能力有限,但与具有国家数据的政策简报相比,州量身定制的政策简报显著增加了州立法者/工作人员对父母对ACE行为健康后果的指责。在传播研究和实践中,意外的信息传递效应值得更多关注。
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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
18 weeks
×
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