Uses of Research Evidence by State Legislators Who Prioritize Behavioral Health Issues
Abstract
Objective:
Disseminating behavioral health (BH) research to elected policy makers is a priority, but little is known about how they use and seek research evidence. This exploratory study aimed to identify research dissemination preferences and research-seeking practices of legislators who prioritize BH issues and to describe the role of research in determining policy priorities. The study also assessed whether these legislators differ from those who do not prioritize BH issues.
Methods:
A telephone-based survey was conducted with 862 state legislators (response rate, 46%). A validated survey instrument assessed priorities and the factors that determined them, research dissemination preferences, and research-seeking practices. Bivariate analyses were used to characterize and compare the two groups.
Results:
Legislators who prioritized BH issues (N=125) were significantly more likely than those who did not to identify research evidence as a factor that determined policy priorities (odds ratio=1.91, 95% confidence interval=1.25–2.90, p=.002). Those who prioritized BH issues also attributed more importance to ten of 12 features of research, and the difference was significant for four features (unbiased, p=.014; presented in a concise way, p=.044; delivered by someone known or respected, p=.033; and tells a story, p=.030). Those who prioritized BH issues also engaged more often in eight of 11 research-seeking and utilization practices, and a significance difference was found for one (attending research presentations, p=.012).
Conclusions:
Legislators who prioritized BH issues actively sought, had distinct preferences for, and were particularly influenced by research evidence. Testing legislator-focused BH research dissemination strategies is an area for future research.
The purpose of research on mental illness and substance misuse (hereafter referred to as behavioral health [BH] research) is to improve population well-being. Public policy can help achieve this aim by allocating resources for evidence-based interventions and enacting regulations that support the prevention, management, and treatment of BH disorders (1–3). For BH research to inform policy decisions, however, policy makers must be knowledgeable about the research. Thus disseminating BH research to policy makers has been resoundingly acknowledged as a priority in the United States (4–10).
Dissemination is defined as the use of tailored strategies and preferred communication channels to spread research evidence among target audiences (11,12). The importance of policy-focused dissemination is apparent in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration’s action plan (7), the National Institute of Mental Health’s (NIMH) objective to strengthen the public health impact of NIMH-supported research (8), the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s mission to ensure the rapid and effective dissemination of research results to inform policy (9), and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism’s mission of translating and disseminating research findings to policy makers (10).
Dissemination does not occur spontaneously, however, and the “passive” dissemination strategies typically used by researchers (for example, peer-reviewed publications) are generally ineffective at reaching policy makers (13–16). Dissemination is most effective when tailored to specific audiences (17), and the field of policy dissemination research has emerged to address this need by generating knowledge about policy makers’ preferences for receiving research evidence (for example, who delivers it and how it is presented) and the practices through which it is used (for example, when and where policy makers seek it) (18–20). Few policy dissemination studies have explored BH issues (21), however, and little empirical evidence exists to inform the design of policy-focused BH dissemination strategies.
A recent systematic review of interventions to increase the use of research in BH policy making highlighted the knowledge gap (22). The review identified only nine studies, and, as the authors noted, virtually none involved public policy makers (a policy maker was broadly defined as any decision maker, including program directors and community leaders). These results were consistent with previous reviews that identified few studies focused on how research evidence is used in BH policy making (23,24). Studies have explored uses of research in BH policy making in Canada (25,26), Australia (27,28), and Belgium (29), but they offer limited guidance regarding how to disseminate BH research to U.S. policy makers. Corrigan and Watson (30) extrapolated findings from social psychological research to propose factors (for example, political ideology) that might influence policy makers’ decisions about mental health services. The article, however, primarily drew from studies conducted with student populations, not with actual policy makers. A qualitative study of federal policy makers found that research evidence was important in passing BH parity legislation, but the study did not explore issues related to research dissemination (31).
BH research dissemination has been inadequately investigated among state policy makers. This knowledge gap warrants particular attention because most government authority to address BH issues exists at the state level. State policy makers, for example, determine the types of BH services that are reimbursable through Medicaid—the largest payer for BH services in the country (32,33). Federal legislation has attempted to promote BH insurance parity (34), but state legislation is needed to supplement federal laws and ensure equal coverage (35,36).
Our study addressed a critical gap in the field of BH services research by analyzing survey data collected from state legislators (that is, policy makers elected to the state houses or state senates). The primary aim of this exploratory study was to identify the research dissemination preferences and research-seeking practices of legislators who prioritized BH issues and describe the role research plays in determining their policy priorities. The secondary aim was to assess whether legislators who prioritize BH issues differ from legislators who do not prioritize these issues.
Theoretical Framework
Our decision to focus on legislators who prioritize BH issues was motivated by Kingdon’s (37,38) multiple streams theory of the policy-making process. The theory is founded on the premise that countless issues are constantly competing for policy makers’ attention and that three “streams” determine whether and how issues are addressed: a problem stream, consisting of issues that need to be addressed; a policy stream, consisting of solutions to these issues; and a political stream, consisting of public opinion and the broader sociopolitical environment. When these three streams converge around an issue, a “policy window” opens and “policy entrepreneurs” (that is, people who advocate for a specific issue) can advance their proposals to address it.
Accordingly, our study focused on legislators who perceived BH issues as priorities because these legislators are most likely to act as policy entrepreneurs and advance policies to address BH issues when a policy window opens (39). By producing a better understanding of how this important subgroup of legislators uses research evidence, the study can inform how BH research might be most effectively communicated to them via targeted dissemination strategies. By assessing whether this subgroup of legislators differs from legislators who do not prioritize BH issues, the study can signal whether tailored dissemination strategies are needed or if uniform strategies are sufficient.
Methods
Design, Participants, and Recruitment
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of state legislators. We partnered with the National Conference of State Legislatures to obtain a complete list of state legislators (N=7,525) and generated a random sample of 2,000 legislators who were invited to participate in a telephone-based survey between January and October 2012. Up to ten attempts were made to contact each legislator, 1,719 were successfully contacted, and 862 completed the survey (response rate, 46%). This is considered a good response rate for a legislator population (40). The survey was administered by an independent research firm. The survey was anonymous; answers cannot be traced back to particular respondents. Institutional review board approval was obtained from Washington University in St. Louis.
Measures
We measured legislators’ use of research evidence with an instrument that has been validated with state legislators (16,41,42). Details about the sources of instrument items and reliability coefficients are described elsewhere (16).
Legislators’ prioritization of BH issues.
Whether or not legislators perceived BH issues as policy priorities (yes or no) served as the dependent variable. Two items were used to determine this. First, legislators were prompted with the open-ended question: “Describe one or two policy priorities that are most important to you” (Q1). Legislators were then asked to select “the top three most important health issues for policy action in your state” (Q2) and presented with a list of 19 issues: “mental health,” “prescription drug abuse,” “access to healthcare,” “aging,” “cancer,” “diabetes,” “diet/nutrition,” “heart disease,” “HIV/AIDS,” “infectious diseases,” “injury prevention,” “Medicare/Medicaid,” “obesity,” “physical activity,” “quality of healthcare,” “the environment,” “tobacco use/cessation,” “universal coverage,” and “violence prevention,” in addition to an open-ended “other” option. At least one “other” health issue was named by 77% (N=664) of respondents.
Open-ended responses from Q1 and Q2 were searched for the terms “mental,” “behavioral,” and “psych” to screen for mental health issue prioritization and for “substance,” “drug,” and “alcohol” to screen for substance misuse issue prioritization. Each response was coded as “mental health,” “substance misuse,” “both,” or “neither.’’ A legislator was categorized as perceiving BH issues as priorities if he or she identified a mental health issue, a substance misuse issue, or both in open-ended responses to Q1 or Q2 or selected “mental health” or “prescription drug abuse” in response to Q2.
Factors that determine legislators’ health policy priorities.
As a follow-up to Q2, legislators were asked to select “which two factors most help you determine which health issues you work on” and were presented with a list of seven options.
Legislators’ research dissemination preferences.
Legislators were presented with 12 statements about features of disseminated research and instructed to “rate the level of priority that you attribute to each” on a scale of 1, low priority, to 5, high priority. To assess how perceptions of disseminated research varied according to the source, legislators were also presented with a list of eight sources of disseminated research (for example, universities and the media) and instructed to “rate the reliability” on a scale of 1, very unreliable, to 5, very reliable.
Legislators’ research-seeking and utilization practices.
Legislators were presented with 11 statements about research-seeking and utilization practices. Seven statements focused on where legislators go when seeking research evidence, and four focused on what they do with it. For each statement, legislators were prompted with the statement, “When making policy, how often do you . . .,” and they rated each on a scale of 1, never, to 5, always.
Legislators’ individual characteristics.
We collected information on legislators’ gender, educational attainment, parental status, self-rated health status, number of years served in the state legislature, chamber (house or senate), and political party membership. We also asked legislators whether they identified as liberal, moderate, or conservative on social issues and fiscal issues.
Analysis
Univariate descriptive statistics were produced to characterize the study population, stratified by whether or not the legislator prioritized BH issues. For dichotomous independent variables, Pearson chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used to identify associations with BH issue prioritization. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were produced to quantify the magnitude of these associations. For continuous and ordinal independent variables, we conducted two-tailed, independent-sample t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests to compare means between legislators who did and did not prioritize BH issues. Responses of “don’t know” and “refuse to answer” were coded as missing and excluded from analyses. Missing data did not exceed 3% for any variable.
Results
Of the 862 legislators who completed the survey, 125 (15%) identified BH issues as priorities (Table 1). Of these, 60 (48%) identified mental health issues, 57 (46%) identified substance misuse issues, and eight (6%) identified both. There were no significant differences between legislators who identified mental health issues and legislators who identified substance misuse issues. Legislators who prioritized BH issues were not significantly different from those who did not prioritize BH issues in terms of any individual characteristic.
| Characteristic | All legislators (N=862) | BH policy priority | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (N=125) | No (N=737) | |||||||
| N | % | N | % | N | % | χ2a | p | |
| Gender | ||||||||
| Male | 629 | 73 | 98 | 78 | 531 | 74 | .92 | .337 |
| Female | 210 | 24 | 27 | 22 | 183 | 26 | .92 | .337 |
| Education | ||||||||
| High school graduate or less | 36 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 31 | 4 | .03 | .855 |
| Trade or vocational school | 16 | 2 | 0 | — | 16 | 2 | —b | .149 |
| Some college or college graduate | 405 | 47 | 54 | 43 | 351 | 49 | 1.61 | .203 |
| Postgraduate degree | 379 | 44 | 66 | 53 | 313 | 44 | 3.31 | .069 |
| Has children | ||||||||
| Yes | 755 | 88 | 114 | 92 | 641 | 90 | .559 | .455 |
| No | 106 | 12 | 11 | 9 | 95 | 13 | ||
| Self-rated health status | ||||||||
| Excellent or very good | 529 | 61 | 84 | 67 | 445 | 63 | .97 | .324 |
| Good | 249 | 29 | 32 | 26 | 217 | 31 | 1.2 | .267 |
| Fair or poor | 58 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 49 | 7 | .02 | .900 |
| Years in state legislature (M±SD) | 862 | 9.3±7.2 | 9.0±7.9 | —b | .516 | |||
| Chamber | ||||||||
| House | 648 | 75 | 94 | 75.2 | 554 | 77.6 | .35 | .556 |
| Senate | 191 | 22 | 31 | 24.8 | 160 | 22.4 | .35 | .556 |
| Political party | ||||||||
| Democrat | 379 | 44 | 58 | 46.4 | 321 | 45.1 | .07 | .795 |
| Republican | 443 | 51 | 66 | 52.8 | 377 | 53.0 | .01 | .963 |
| Other | 14 | 2 | 1 | .8 | 13 | 1.8 | —b | .706 |
| Position on social issues | ||||||||
| Liberal | 235 | 27 | 36 | 30 | 199 | 29 | .06 | .815 |
| Moderate | 165 | 19 | 26 | 21 | 139 | 20 | .13 | .717 |
| Conservative | 418 | 48 | 59 | 48 | 359 | 51 | .37 | .541 |
| Position on fiscal issues | ||||||||
| Liberal | 86 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 76 | 11 | .81 | .369 |
| Moderate | 174 | 20 | 23 | 18 | 151 | 21 | .82 | .366 |
| Conservative | 568 | 66 | 92 | 74 | 476 | 67 | 2.34 | .126 |
a
df=1
b
Fisher’s exact test was used to compare differences between legislators who did and did not prioritize BH issues.
Factors Determining Health Policy Priorities
Legislators who prioritized BH issues were significantly more likely than legislators who did not to select research evidence as one of the two factors that determined health policy priorities (32% versus 20%, OR=1.91, p=.002) (Table 2). Research evidence was the second most frequently cited factor by legislators who prioritized BH issues, whereas it was fifth most frequently cited by legislators who did not prioritize BH issues. Constituents’ needs and opinions was cited as the primary factor that determined health policy priorities by legislators who prioritized BH issues (66%) and by those who did not (68%). Among both groups of legislators, economic issues (N=151, 18%) and interactions with lobbyists (N=62, 7%) were the factors least frequently cited.
| Factora | BH policy priority | ORb | 95% CI | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (N=125) | No (N=737) | ||||||
| N | % | N | % | ||||
| Constituents’ needs and opinions | 82 | 66 | 474 | 68 | .93 | .62–1.10 | .728 |
| Research evidence | 40 | 32 | 140 | 20 | 1.91 | 1.25–2.90 | .002 |
| Legislation proposed by colleagues | 35 | 28 | 221 | 32 | .85 | .56–1.30 | .458 |
| Data impact local area | 33 | 27 | 208 | 30 | .86 | .56–1.32 | .484 |
| Personal interest | 25 | 20 | 161 | 23 | .85 | .53–1.36 | .486 |
| Economic issues | 22 | 18 | 129 | 18 | .96 | .58–1.57 | .855 |
| Interaction with lobbyists | 10 | 8 | 52 | 7 | 1.09 | .54–2.21 | .805 |
a
Each respondent was limited to selecting two factors.
b
The odds ratios reflect the association between the odds of a legislator identifying BH issues as policy priorities and each factor that determined health policy priorities.
Research Dissemination Preferences
In addition to being more influenced by research when determining health policy priorities, legislators who prioritized BH issues were more discerning consumers of research evidence than legislators who did not prioritize BH issues. Legislators who prioritized BH issues gave a higher importance rating than legislators who did not to ten of 12 statements about features of disseminated research (Table 3). Differences were statistically significant for four of these features: unbiased (p=.014); presented in a brief, concise way (p=.044); delivered by a person the legislator knows and respects (p=.033); and telling a story about how a health issue affects constituents (p=.030). The unbiased aspect of research was the factor with the highest rating among legislators who prioritized BH issues, whereas it was tied for fourth among legislators who did not prioritize BH issues. The political feasibility of research received the lowest rating regardless of whether BH issues were identified as priorities.
| Preference | BH policy prioritya | Mann- | df | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (N=125) | No (N=737) | ||||||
| M | SD | M | SD | Whitney U | |||
| Features of disseminated research | |||||||
| Unbiased | 4.54 | .82 | 4.29 | 1.02 | 40,095 | 826 | .014 |
| Understandably written | 4.47 | .82 | 4.45 | .80 | 36,518 | 816 | .770 |
| Presented in a brief, concise way | 4.46 | .86 | 4.33 | .86 | 43,517 | 834 | .044 |
| Available at the time decisions are being made | 4.43 | .83 | 4.42 | .82 | 39,539 | 832 | .778 |
| Deals with a priority issue for legislative policy action | 4.39 | .79 | 4.29 | .81 | 40,088 | 824 | .158 |
| Relevant to my constituents | 4.32 | .78 | 4.19 | .85 | 40,095 | 826 | .150 |
| Provides data on the cost-effectiveness of a policy | 4.30 | .86 | 4.29 | .82 | 43,251 | 828 | .817 |
| Delivered to me by someone I know or respect | 4.27 | .77 | 4.07 | .91 | 38,976 | 830 | .033 |
| Tells a story of how a health issue affects my constituents | 4.20 | .83 | 4.00 | .92 | 38,375 | 826 | .030 |
| Provides policy options | 4.15 | .84 | 4.07 | .92 | 4,1461 | 826 | .409 |
| Supports my position | 3.31 | 1.15 | 3.46 | 1.12 | 45,959 | 822 | .179 |
| Has politically feasible implications | 3.27 | 1.22 | 3.41 | 1.18 | 43,929 | 810 | .295 |
| Reliability of sources of disseminated research | |||||||
| University | 3.97 | .823 | 3.87 | .86 | 41,014 | 825 | .384 |
| Constituents | 3.52 | 1.01 | 3.45 | .91 | 41,198 | 825 | .432 |
| Other legislators | 3.41 | .86 | 3.35 | .78 | 40,369 | 824 | .251 |
| Government source | 3.36 | .82 | 3.24 | .92 | 40,602 | 823 | .317 |
| Caucus leadership | 3.30 | 1.00 | 3.15 | .98 | 38,914 | 818 | .109 |
| Industry | 3.15 | .92 | 3.13 | .89 | 43,272 | 829 | .808 |
| Advocacy groups | 2.70 | .84 | 2.83 | .89 | 46,035 | 833 | .155 |
| Media | 2.21 | .82 | 2.16 | .86 | 42,335 | 829 | .603 |
a
Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating higher priority or higher perceived reliability
Legislators who prioritized BH issues generally perceived research to be more reliable than legislators who did not prioritize BH issues, regardless of the dissemination source (Table 3). Legislators who prioritized BH issues reported a higher reliability rating than legislators who did not prioritize BH issues for seven of eight sources of disseminated research, although none of the differences were significant. Universities were identified as the most reliable source and media as the least reliable source by legislators who did and who did not prioritize BH issues.
Research-Seeking and Utilization Practices
Legislators who prioritized BH issues reported being more active seekers and users of research than legislators who did not prioritize BH issues. The former group engaged in eight of 11 research-seeking and utilization practices more often than those who did not prioritize BH issues (Table 4), although the only significant difference was for the practice of attending seminars or presentations where research was discussed (p=.012). Among all legislators, asking internal legislative research bureaus for information was performed most often and reading or watching popular media stories was performed least often.
| Practice | BH policy prioritya | Mann- | df | p | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes (N=125) | No (N=737) | ||||||
| M | SD | M | SD | Whitney U | |||
| Research seeking | |||||||
| Ask internal legislative research bureaus for information | 4.23 | .94 | 4.06 | 1.04 | 40,117 | 834 | .088 |
| Explore what other states are doing | 3.72 | 1.04 | 3.62 | .96 | 41,383 | 836 | .182 |
| Read scientific research reports | 3.48 | 1.04 | 3.28 | 1.17 | 40,513 | 835 | .099 |
| Ask an external legislative research organization for information | 3.39 | 1.14 | 3.36 | 1.13 | 43,346 | 834 | .739 |
| Attend seminars or presentations where research is discussed | 3.05 | 1.15 | 2.78 | 1.09 | 38,532 | 836 | .012 |
| Contact scientific researchers or experts for advice | 2.94 | 1.13 | 2.90 | 1.19 | 43,142 | 832 | .715 |
| Read or watch popular media stories | 2.77 | 1.19 | 2.82 | 1.18 | 45,820 | 833 | .470 |
| Research utilization | |||||||
| Use research to justify a decision | 4.16 | .95 | 4.11 | .91 | 41,487 | 831 | .424 |
| Talk with colleagues about research on important issues | 4.15 | 1.00 | 4.15 | .92 | 43,378 | 836 | .702 |
| Use research presented in committee testimony | 4.11 | .92 | 4.11 | .93 | 44,240 | 832 | .946 |
| Take the results of a relevant scientific study into account when making a decision | 3.99 | .99 | 3.97 | .92 | 42,507 | 832 | .514 |
a
Possible scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater frequency.
Discussion
We found that legislators who prioritized BH issues actively sought and were influenced by research evidence—and more so than legislators who did not prioritize BH issues. These results suggest that the legislators who are most likely to act as BH policy entrepreneurs and best positioned to integrate BH research findings into policy designs are particularly receptive to research evidence and have distinct dissemination presences, although the magnitude of these differences was small. Future studies should examine in greater detail how BH research is used in state legislative processes and test the effects of legislator-focused BH research dissemination strategies. Our results offer guidance to structure the design of these strategies.
The finding that legislators who prioritized BH issues reported a significantly higher importance rating for the statement that research “tells a story of how a health issue affects my constituents” suggests that dissemination strategies that combine narrative with local BH data could be effective. Studies have found that narrative approaches to policy dissemination, in which stories about individuals affected by an issue are presented, are often more effective than exclusively data-focused approaches (43–45). This is consistent with research finding that people’s perceptions of mental illness improve when they know a person with a diagnosis (46) and Corrigan and Watson’s (30) proposition that mental health policy advocacy is likely to be most effective when it involves personal stories about mental illness.
The finding that legislators who prioritized BH issues significantly preferred research delivered by a known and trusted individual suggests potential for initiatives that foster relationships between BH researchers and legislators. An initiative to enhance collaboration between mental health researchers and policy makers in Canada offers a model (47). BH researchers might also establish relationships with, and disseminate research findings directly to, legislative research bureau staff, given that these staff were identified as legislators’ primary source for research evidence.
Our study can inform how BH researchers might utilize the media to infuse research evidence into policy-making processes. Scholars have asserted that the media play a major role in shaping BH policy (48,49). We found, however, that legislators rated the media as the least reliable and least utilized source for research. It is possible that BH research influences policy making indirectly via legislators’ constituents, who become knowledgeable about BH research through the media and advocate for legislators to act on this research. As noted, constituent needs and opinions were identified as the most influential factors determining health policy priorities, and constituents were perceived as the second most reliable source of research.
We did not observe significant differences in political ideology between legislators who did and did not prioritize BH issues. This suggests bipartisan support for BH policies, a situation that would increase the chances of BH policy proposals’ becoming law. However, our study did not explore legislators’ opinions about the types of policy approaches that should be used to address BH issues or the extent to which they were evidence based or varied by political ideology. As Corrigan and colleagues (50) described, conservative and liberal legislators are likely to consider decisions to allocate resources for mental health services differently, with liberals being more inclined to support government funding of services.
Limitations of this study derive from the fact that we conducted a secondary analysis of an existing data set. Measures assessed legislators’ preferences and practices related to research evidence in general, not BH research in particular. This limits what can be inferred from the study. For example, we observed a strong association between identification of research evidence as a factor that determined health policy priorities and legislator prioritization of BH issues, but we cannot infer that BH research evidence contributed to legislators’ determination that BH issues were a priority.
There are also limitations with our broad measure of BH issue prioritization. Legislators identified a range of specific BH issues (for example, depression among elderly people and prescription drug abuse among adolescents) in open-ended responses, but we combined these issues into a single measure because we did not have statistical power to conduct subissue analyses. Although many BH conditions are comorbid and simultaneously addressed by a single law (for example, state BH parity legislation), they affect distinct populations with specific needs. Future research should explore the particular types of research used by legislators when they are working on specific BH issues.
There are similar limitations with our measure of non–BH issue prioritization. Legislators in this group identified a various issues as policy priorities in response to Q1, some of which are not the subject of extensive research (for example, unemployment and transportation). Consequently, compared with legislators who prioritized BH issues, legislators who did not may have reported engaging in research-seeking and utilization practices less frequently because they were focused on issues for which research evidence is less relevant. This is unlikely to affect the implications of our study, however, because it simply signals that legislators who prioritize BH issues may engage in different research-seeking practices than legislators who do not prioritize these issues and that tailored dissemination strategies may be warranted. Our study was designed to assess whether use of research practices differed between legislators who did and did not prioritize BH issues, not to determine the reasons for the differences observed.
Conclusions
Compared with legislators who did not prioritize BH issues, legislators who prioritized BH issues more actively sought, had distinct preferences for, and were more influenced by research evidence. These results suggest potential for BH research findings to inform legislative decisions. Developing and testing policy-focused BH research dissemination strategies are areas for future research that can advance evidence-based policies to improve the well-being of people affected by BH issues.
References
1.
Mechanic D: Policy challenges in improving mental health services: some lessons from the past. Psychiatric Services 54:1227–1232, 2003
2.
Tanenbaum SJ: Evidence-based practice as mental health policy: three controversies and a caveat. Health Affairs 24:163–173, 2005
3.
Lehman AF, Goldman H, Dixon LB, et al: Evidence-Based Mental Health Treatments and Services: Examples to Inform Public Policy. New York, Milbank Memorial Fund, 2004. http://www.milbank.org/uploads/documents/2004lehman/2004lehman.html
4.
Hogan M: Using evidence to influence policy and improve practice. Psychiatric Services 66:769, 2015
5.
Nelson G: Community psychology and transformative policy change in the neo-liberal era. American Journal of Community Psychology 52:211–223, 2013
6.
Sarason SB: Community psychology and public policy: missed opportunity. American Journal of Community Psychology 12:199–207, 1984
7.
Shaping and Informing Public Policy to Improve Lives. Rockville, Md, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2011. http://store.samhsa.gov/product/Shaping-and-Informing-Public-Policy-to-Improve-Lives/SMA11-PHYDE042611
8.
Strategic Plan for Research. Bethesda, Md, National Institute of Mental Health, 2015. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/strategic-planning-reports/NIMH_StrategicPlanforResearch_508Compliant_CORRECTED_FINAL_149979.pdf
9.
Strategic Plan. Bethesda, Md, National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2010. https://d14rmgtrwzf5a.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/stratplan.pdf
10.
Mission Statement. Bethesda, Md, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/about-niaaa/our-work/mission-statement
11.
Rabin BA, Brownson RC, Haire-Joshu D, et al: A glossary for dissemination and implementation research in health. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 14:117–123, 2008
12.
Glasgow RE, Vinson C, Chambers D, et al: National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions. American Journal of Public Health 102:1274–1281, 2012
13.
Brownson RC, Jacobs JA, Tabak RG, et al: Designing for dissemination among public health researchers: findings from a national survey in the United States. American Journal of Public Health 103:1693–1699, 2013
14.
Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, et al: Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ 317:465–468, 1998
15.
Brownson RC, Royer C, Ewing R, et al: Researchers and policymakers: travelers in parallel universes. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 30:164–172, 2006
16.
Bogenschneider K, Corbett TJ: Evidence-Based Policymaking: Insights From Policy-Minded Researchers and Research-Minded Policymakers. New York, Routledge, 2011
17.
Lomas J: Diffusion, dissemination, and implementation: who should do what? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 703:226–235, 1993
18.
Dodson E, Brownson RC, Weiss S: Policy dissemination research; in Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. Edited by Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. Oxford, United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2012
19.
Glasgow RE, Chambers DA, Cynkin L: News from the NIH: highlights in implementation science from the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Mental Health. Translational Behavioral Medicine 3:335–337, 2013
20.
Brownson RC, Seiler R, Eyler AA: Measuring the impact of public health policy. Preventing Chronic Disease 7:A77, 2010
21.
Purtle J, Peters R, Brownson R: A review of policy dissemination and implementation research funded by the National Institutes of Health, 2007–2014. Implementation Science (Epub ahead of print, Jan 4, 2016)
22.
Williamson A, Makkar SR, McGrath C, et al: How can the use of evidence in mental health policy be increased? A systematic review. Psychiatric Services 66:783–797, 2015
23.
Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, et al: A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Services Research 14:2, 2014
24.
Goldner EM, Jeffries V, Bilsker D, et al: Knowledge translation in mental health: a scoping review. Healthcare Policy 7:83–98, 2011
25.
Waddell C, Lavis JN, Abelson J, et al: Research use in children’s mental health policy in Canada: maintaining vigilance amid ambiguity. Social Science and Medicine 61:1649–1657, 2005
26.
Waddell C, Shepherd CA, Lavis JN, et al: Balancing rigour and relevance: researchers’ contributions to children’s mental health in Canada. Evidence and Policy 3:181–195, 2007
27.
Ritter A: The role of research evidence in drug policy development in Australia. Politička Misao 48:141–156, 2012
28.
Ritter A, Lancaster K: Measuring research influence on drug policy: a case example of two epidemiological monitoring systems. International Journal on Drug Policy 24:30–37, 2013
29.
Tieberghien J, Decorte T: Understanding the science–policy nexus in Belgium: an analysis of the drug policy debate (1996–2003). Drugs Education: Prevention and Policy 20:241–248, 2013
30.
Corrigan PW, Watson AC: Factors that explain how policy makers distribute resources to mental health services. Psychiatric Services 54:501–507, 2003
31.
Barry CL, Huskamp HA, Goldman HH: A political history of federal mental health and addiction insurance parity. Milbank Quarterly 88:404–433, 2010
32.
Cummings JR, Wen H, Ko M, et al: Geography and the Medicaid mental health care infrastructure: implications for health care reform. JAMA Psychiatry 70:1084–1090, 2013
33.
Mark T, Levit K, Coffey R: National Expenditures for Mental Health Services and Substance Abuse Treatment, 1993–2003. Pub no SMA 07-4227. Rockville, Md, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2008
34.
Hernandez EM, Uggen C: Institutions, politics, and mental health parity. Society and Mental Health 2:154–171, 2012
35.
Burns ME: State discretion over Medicaid coverage for mental health and addiction services. Psychiatric Services 66:221–223, 2015
36.
Wen H, Cummings JR, Hockenberry JM, et al: State parity laws and access to treatment for substance use disorder in the United States: implications for federal parity legislation. JAMA Psychiatry 70:1355–1362, 2013
37.
Kingdon JW: Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York, Little, Brown, 1984
38.
Sabatier PA, Weible C (ed): Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, Colo, Westview Press, 2014
39.
Mintrom M, Norman P: Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal 37:649–667, 2009
40.
Brownson RC, Dodson EA, Stamatakis KA, et al: Communicating evidence-based information on cancer prevention to state-level policy makers. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103:306–316, 2011
41.
Bogenschneider K, Little OM, Johnson K: Policymakers’ use of social science research: looking within and across policy actors. Journal of Marriage and the Family 75:263–275, 2013
42.
Moreland-Russell S, Barbero C, Andersen S, et al: “Hearing from all sides”: how legislative testimony influences state level policy-makers in the United States. International Journal of Health Policy and Management 4:91–98, 2015
43.
Stamatakis KA, McBride TD, Brownson RC: Communicating prevention messages to policy makers: the role of stories in promoting physical activity. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 7(suppl 1):S99–S107, 2010
44.
Baesler EJ, Burgoon JK: The temporal effects of story and statistical evidence on belief change. Communication Research 21:582–602, 1994
45.
Kreuter MW, Green MC, Cappella JN, et al: Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: a framework to guide research and application. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 33:221–235, 2007
46.
Stuber JP, Rocha A, Christian A, et al: Conceptions of mental illness: attitudes of mental health professionals and the general public. Psychiatric Services 65:490–497, 2014
47.
Goering P, Butterill D, Jacobson N, et al: Linkage and exchange at the organizational level: a model of collaboration between research and policy. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 8(suppl 2):14–19, 2003
48.
Wahl OF: News media portrayal of mental illness implications for public policy. American Behavioral Scientist 46:1594–1600, 2003
49.
Hallam A: Media influences on mental health policy: long-term effects of the Clunis and Silcock cases. International Review of Psychiatry 14:26–33, 2002
50.
Corrigan PW, Watson AC, Warpinski AC, et al: Stigmatizing attitudes about mental illness and allocation of resources to mental health services. Community Mental Health Journal 40:297–307, 2004
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: pocket watch, by Robert et Courvoisier, 1800–1816. Silver, brass, ormuolu, enamel, and steel. Bequest of Henry Francis du Pont, Winterthur Museum, Winterthur, Del.
History
Received: 17 October 2015
Revision received: 12 February 2016
Accepted: 12 April 2016
Published online: 1 July 2016
Published in print: December 01, 2016
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases10.13039/100000062: 1P30DK092950
National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences10.13039/100006108: KL2 TR000450, UL1 TR000448
National Cancer Institute10.13039/100000054: 1R01CA124404-01
This research was funded in part by grant 1R01CA124404-01 from the National Cancer Institute, grant 1P30DK092950 from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, grant UL1 TR000448 from the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences, and grant KL2 TR000450 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).