{"title":"利用政策简报向决策者传达牙科研究成果。","authors":"J N Lee, C M Hill, D L Chi","doi":"10.1177/23800844231171831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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 <i>t</i> test was used to evaluate whether outcomes differed by policy brief type and government level (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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; <i>P</i> = 0.65) and credible (MR and SD: 4.13 ± 0.70 and 4.09 ± 0.70, respectively; <i>P</i> = 0.74), but they were not likely to use (MR and SD: 2.71 ± 1.15 and 2.55 ± 1.28, respectively; <i>P</i> = 0.51) or share it (MR and SD: 2.62 ± 1.04 and 2.66 ± 1.30, respectively; <i>P</i> = 0.87). The likelihood of sharing briefs differed significantly by level of government (<i>P</i> = 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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Knowledge transfer statement: </strong>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.</p>","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":"{\"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\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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 <i>t</i> test was used to evaluate whether outcomes differed by policy brief type and government level (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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; <i>P</i> = 0.65) and credible (MR and SD: 4.13 ± 0.70 and 4.09 ± 0.70, respectively; <i>P</i> = 0.74), but they were not likely to use (MR and SD: 2.71 ± 1.15 and 2.55 ± 1.28, respectively; <i>P</i> = 0.51) or share it (MR and SD: 2.62 ± 1.04 and 2.66 ± 1.30, respectively; <i>P</i> = 0.87). The likelihood of sharing briefs differed significantly by level of government (<i>P</i> = 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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Knowledge transfer statement: </strong>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.</p>\",\"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}","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}
Using Policy Briefs to Communicate Dental Research Findings to Policymakers.
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.
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.