Using Policy Briefs to Communicate Dental Research Findings to Policymakers.

IF 2.2 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

JDR Clinical & Translational Research Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-15 DOI:10.1177/23800844231171831

J N Lee, C M Hill, D L Chi

{"title":"Using Policy Briefs to Communicate Dental Research Findings to Policymakers.","authors":"J N Lee, C M Hill, D L Chi","doi":"10.1177/23800844231171831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: New scientific knowledge is not always available to decision makers. Policy briefs are a way that dental researchers can communicate research findings to policymakers. This study compares usefulness of 2 types of policy briefs about sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake and tooth decay.Methods: We developed 2 policy brief types (data focused and narrative focused) and emailed a randomly assigned policy brief to 825 policymakers and staff from 3 levels of government (city, county, and state) in Washington State. Participants completed a 22-item online questionnaire. There were 4 study outcomes: whether the brief was understandable, whether the brief was credible, likelihood of use, and likelihood to be shared (each measured on a 5-point Likert-like scale). The t test was used to evaluate whether outcomes differed by policy brief type and government level (α = 0.05).Results: There were 108 respondents (adjusted response rate 14.6%). About 41.6% of participants were in city government, 26.9% were in county government, and 29.6% were in state government. Participants reported that both data- and narrative-focused briefs were understandable (mean rating [MR] and standard deviation [SD]: 4.15 ± 0.68 and 4.09 ± 0.81, respectively; P = 0.65) and credible (MR and SD: 4.13 ± 0.70 and 4.09 ± 0.70, respectively; P = 0.74), but they were not likely to use (MR and SD: 2.71 ± 1.15 and 2.55 ± 1.28, respectively; P = 0.51) or share it (MR and SD: 2.62 ± 1.04 and 2.66 ± 1.30, respectively; P = 0.87). The likelihood of sharing briefs differed significantly by level of government (P = 0.017). Participants at the state level were more likely to share information from the briefs (mean rating and SD: 3.10 ± 0.80) than city- and county-level participants (MR and SD: 2.62 ± 1.27, and 2.24 ± 1.21, respectively).Conclusion: Both data- and narrative-focused policy briefs may be a useful way to communicate dental research findings to policymakers, but additional steps are needed to ensure that briefs are used and shared.Knowledge transfer statement: Researchers should disseminate their research findings to maximize scientific impact. Our study findings indicate that policy briefs may be a useful way to communicate dental research findings to policymakers, but additional research is needed on the best ways to disseminate findings.","PeriodicalId":14783,"journal":{"name":"JDR Clinical & Translational Research","volume":" ","pages":"150-159"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JDR Clinical & Translational Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23800844231171831","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: New scientific knowledge is not always available to decision makers. Policy briefs are a way that dental researchers can communicate research findings to policymakers. This study compares usefulness of 2 types of policy briefs about sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) intake and tooth decay.

Methods: We developed 2 policy brief types (data focused and narrative focused) and emailed a randomly assigned policy brief to 825 policymakers and staff from 3 levels of government (city, county, and state) in Washington State. Participants completed a 22-item online questionnaire. There were 4 study outcomes: whether the brief was understandable, whether the brief was credible, likelihood of use, and likelihood to be shared (each measured on a 5-point Likert-like scale). The t test was used to evaluate whether outcomes differed by policy brief type and government level (α = 0.05).

Results: There were 108 respondents (adjusted response rate 14.6%). About 41.6% of participants were in city government, 26.9% were in county government, and 29.6% were in state government. Participants reported that both data- and narrative-focused briefs were understandable (mean rating [MR] and standard deviation [SD]: 4.15 ± 0.68 and 4.09 ± 0.81, respectively; P = 0.65) and credible (MR and SD: 4.13 ± 0.70 and 4.09 ± 0.70, respectively; P = 0.74), but they were not likely to use (MR and SD: 2.71 ± 1.15 and 2.55 ± 1.28, respectively; P = 0.51) or share it (MR and SD: 2.62 ± 1.04 and 2.66 ± 1.30, respectively; P = 0.87). The likelihood of sharing briefs differed significantly by level of government (P = 0.017). Participants at the state level were more likely to share information from the briefs (mean rating and SD: 3.10 ± 0.80) than city- and county-level participants (MR and SD: 2.62 ± 1.27, and 2.24 ± 1.21, respectively).

Conclusion: Both data- and narrative-focused policy briefs may be a useful way to communicate dental research findings to policymakers, but additional steps are needed to ensure that briefs are used and shared.

Knowledge transfer statement: Researchers should disseminate their research findings to maximize scientific impact. Our study findings indicate that policy briefs may be a useful way to communicate dental research findings to policymakers, but additional research is needed on the best ways to disseminate findings.

查看原文本刊更多论文

利用政策简报向决策者传达牙科研究成果。

目标：决策者并非总能获得新的科学知识。政策简报是牙科研究人员向决策者传达研究结果的一种方式。本研究比较了有关含糖饮料（SSB）摄入量和蛀牙的两种政策简报的实用性：我们开发了 2 种政策简报类型（以数据为重点和以叙述为重点），并将随机分配的政策简报通过电子邮件发送给华盛顿州 3 级政府（市、县和州）的 825 名决策者和工作人员。参与者填写了一份包含 22 个项目的在线问卷。研究结果有 4 项：简报是否易懂、简报是否可信、使用的可能性以及分享的可能性（每项均采用 5 点李克特量表）。采用 t 检验来评估不同政策简介类型和政府级别的结果是否存在差异（α = 0.05）：共有 108 位受访者（调整后回复率为 14.6%）。约 41.6% 的参与者在市政府工作，26.9% 在县政府工作，29.6% 在州政府工作。参与者表示，以数据和叙述为重点的简报都可以理解（平均评分 [MR] 和标准差 [SD]：4.15 ± 0.68 和 4.15 ± 0.68）：平均评分[MR]和标准差[SD]分别为 4.15 ± 0.68 和 4.09 ± 0.81；P = 0.65）和可信度（平均评分[MR]和标准差[SD]分别为 4.13 ± 0.70 和 4.09 ± 0.70；P = 0.74），但他们不太可能使用（平均评分[MR]和标准差[SD]分别为 2.71 ± 1.15 和 2.55 ± 1.28；P = 0.51）或分享（平均评分[MR]和标准差[SD]分别为 2.62 ± 1.04 和 2.66 ± 1.30；P = 0.87）。分享简报的可能性因政府级别不同而有显著差异（P = 0.017）。州级参与者分享简报信息的可能性（平均分和标准差：3.10 ± 0.80）高于市级和县级参与者（平均分和标准差：分别为 2.62 ± 1.27 和 2.24 ± 1.21）：以数据和叙述为重点的政策简报可能是向政策制定者传达牙科研究成果的一种有用方式，但还需要采取更多措施来确保简报的使用和共享：研究人员应该传播他们的研究成果，以最大限度地扩大科学影响。我们的研究结果表明，政策简报可能是向政策制定者传达牙科研究结果的一种有用的方式，但还需要对传播研究结果的最佳方式进行更多的研究。

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

JDR Clinical & Translational Research DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

6.20

自引率

6.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： JDR Clinical & Translational Research seeks to publish the highest quality research articles on clinical and translational research including all of the dental specialties and implantology. Examples include behavioral sciences, cariology, oral & pharyngeal cancer, disease diagnostics, evidence based health care delivery, human genetics, health services research, periodontal diseases, oral medicine, radiology, and pathology. The JDR Clinical & Translational Research expands on its research content by including high-impact health care and global oral health policy statements and systematic reviews of clinical concepts affecting clinical practice. Unique to the JDR Clinical & Translational Research are advances in clinical and translational medicine articles created to focus on research with an immediate potential to affect clinical therapy outcomes.