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, Katherine L Nelson, Félice Lê-Scherban, 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":"4 ","pages":"26334895231172807"},"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.