Framing research for state policymakers who place a priority on cancer
- 285 Downloads
Despite the potential for reducing the cancer burden via state policy change, few data exist on how best to disseminate research information to influence state legislators’ policy choices. We explored: (1) the relative importance of core framing issues (source, presentation, timeliness) among policymakers who prioritize cancer and those who do not prioritize cancer and (2) the predictors of use of research in policymaking.
Cross-sectional data were collected from US state policymakers (i.e., legislators elected to state houses or senates) from January through October 2012 (n = 862). One-way analysis of variance was performed to investigate the association of the priority of cancer variable with outcome variables. Multivariate logistic regression models examined predictors of the influence of research information.
Legislators who prioritized cancer tended to rate characteristics that make research information useful higher than those who did not prioritize cancer. Among differences that were statistically significant were three items in the “source” domain (relevance, delivered by someone respected, supports one’s own position), one item in the “presentation” domain (telling a story related to constituents) and two items in the “timeliness” domain (high current state priority, feasible when information is received). Participants who prioritized cancer risk factors were 80 % more likely to rate research information as one of their top reasons for choosing an issue on which to work.
Our results suggest the importance of narrative forms of communication and that research information needs to be relevant to the policymakers’ constituents in a brief, concise format.
KeywordsCancer control Evidence Health policy Policy making Research
The authors are grateful for the assistance from the National Conference of State Legislatures. This research was funded in part by the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health (Grant Numbers 1R01CA124404-015, R25CA171994-02, and P30 CA09184); the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (Grant Number 1P30DK092950); and Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (Grant Numbers UL1 TR000448 and KL2 TR000450) from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.
- 13.Task Force on Community Preventive Services (2015) Guide to Community Preventive Services. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. www.thecommunityguide.org. Accessed 15 Nov 2015
- 14.National Cancer Institute (2015) Cancer Control Continuum. National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health. http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/od/continuum.html. Accessed 15 Nov 2015
- 15.McGowan A, Brownson R, Wilcox L, Mensah G (2006) Prevention and control of chronic diseases. In: Goodman R, Rothstein M, Hoffman R, Lopez W, Matthews G (eds) Law in public health practice, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 16.Eyler A, Chriqui J, Moreland-Russell S, Brownson R (eds) (2016) Prevention, policy, and public health. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 17.CDC (1994) State cancer registries: status of authorizing legislation and enabling regulations–United States, October 1993. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 43(4):71–75Google Scholar
- 21.Cokkinides V, Bandi P, Shah M, Virgo K, Ward E (2011) The association between state mandates of colorectal cancer screening coverage and colorectal cancer screening utilization among US adults aged 50 to 64 years with health insurance. BMC Heal Serv Res 11:19. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-19 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Akl EA, Oxman AD, Herrin J, Vist GE, Terrenato I, Sperati F, Costiniuk C, Blank D, Schunemann H (2011) Framing of health information messages. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (12):CD006777. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006777.pub2
- 27.Fox D (2010) The convergence of science and governance: research, health policy, and American states. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- 28.Kingdon JW (2010) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Updated 2nd edn. Longman, BostonGoogle Scholar
- 29.McDonough J (2000) Experiencing politics. A legislator’s stories of government and health care. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- 31.Bogenschneider K, Coorbett T (2010) Evidence-based policymaking: insights from policy-minded researchers and research-minded policy makers. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 41.Stamatakis K, McBride T, Brownson R (2010) Communicating prevention messages to policy makers: the role of stories in promoting physical activity. J Phys Act Heal 7(Suppl 1):S00–S107Google Scholar
- 44.Kreuter MW, Green MC, Cappella JN, Slater MD, Wise ME, Storey D, Clark EM, O’Keefe DJ, Erwin DO, Holmes K, Hinyard LJ, Houston T, Woolley S (2007) Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: a framework to guide research and application. Ann Behav Med 33(3):221–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 47.Nelson D, Hesse B, Croyle R (2009) Making data talk. Communicating public health data to the public. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 48.Wallack L, Woodruff K, Dorfman L, Diaz I (1999) News for a change an advocate’s guide to working with the media, vol 3. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- 53.Jervis KJ (2005) A review of state legislation and a state legislator survey related to not-for-profit hospital tax exemption and health care for the indigent. J Heal Care Finance 32(2):36–71Google Scholar