Testing Strategies to Improve Substance Misuse Prevention Research Use in State Policy Contexts
For patients and families
In plain language
An automatic summary of structured registry data. It is an orientation aid, not a substitute for the official protocol or a physician assessment.
- What is being studied
- The protocol lists: Intervention: RPC Group, Active Comparator: Control Group.
- Who it may be relevant to
- Registry conditions: Substance Abuse, Substance Use Disorders, Prevention, Legislation. Basic parameters: No limits · All.
- What needs checking
- Age, condition and sex are only basic indicators. Prior treatment, laboratory values and other mandatory requirements appear in the eligibility criteria below.
- Where it takes place
- United States
- Next step
- Save the trial, show it to the treating physician, and confirm current recruitment with the study center. Costs, documents and travel →
Unsure about the terms? Read our patient guide →
Official title
Building the Science of Evidence-Informed Prevention Policy: a Multi-level Model for Supporting Substance Misuse Prevention
Overview
If science is to inform effective substance misuse prevention policy and ultimately improve public health, the field needs an effective strategy for directly supporting policymakers' use of research evidence, yet our field lacks an evidence-based model designed for this purpose. Accordingly, a state-level randomized controlled trial (N = 30 states) of a formal, theory-based approach for appropriately supporting policymakers' use of scientific evidence--known as the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) Model is proposed. This work has the potential to reduce population-level substance misuse by improving the use of scientific information in policymaking, thus increasing the availability of evidence-based prevention programs and policies.
Detailed description
If science is to inform policy and ultimately improve public health, the field needs an effective strategy for directly supporting policymakers' use of research evidence. However, the field lacks an evidence-based model designed for supporting state policymakers' use of prevention research in crafting legislation. Instead, the field continues to largely rely on ad hoc strategies for translating prevention research (e.g., opportunistic outreach and responding to policymakers' requests if or when they are made). Accordingly, an experimental study of a formal, theory-based approach for supporting policymakers' use of scientific evidence that does not involve lobbying-the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) Model is proposed. The RPC fosters productive engagement between the policy and research communities by implementing systematic capacity building and outreach strategies. Previous experimental work on the RPC demonstrated the ability of this model to increase engagement between researchers and policymakers, increase policymakers' value for research evidence, and improve their use of scientific evidence in their policymaking.1 The study proposes a state-level randomized controlled trial of the RPC (N = 30 state legislatures) that will evaluate the model's ability to improve engagement between state policymakers' and the prevention science community, build policymakers' awareness and value of substance misuse prevention research, and subsequently their use of research evidence throughout the policymaking process. To accomplish this, the study will test three specific research aims. Aim 1 will assess historical and current use of research evidence in state legislation pertaining to substance misuse prevention. This will involve qualitative coding of bills introduced by state legislatures over the last five years. Aim 2 will compare the frequency and quality of engagement with prevention researchers between the intervention and control conditions. Additionally, the study will assess how the RPC model influences policymakers' value and awareness of substance misuse prevention over time using a validated survey across three time points. Aim 3 will evaluate the effectiveness of the RPC on legislators' actual use of research in legislation by observing and quantifying changes in legislator behavior related to research use. Improving the use of scientific information in policymaking can reduce population-level substance misuse by increasing the availability of evidence-based prevention programs and policies.
Interventions
- Behavioral Intervention: RPC Group
The RPC model entails seven interrelated steps including a capacity building and collaboration phase. Throughout the implementation, researchers are provided direct access to intermediary support from our trained RPC fellows who facilitate RPC activity at each step coordinated by an implementation supervisor. Importantly, this model does not involve any lobbying. Consistent with NIH guidelines for grantees, the RPC instead aims to "highlight and translate public health evidence…; conduct coaliti - Behavioral Active Comparator: Control Group
Control group participants will receive "light touch" research support, similar to previous work (e.g., an RPC associate will send publicly available research materials in response to research requests). This light touch control condition will increase responsiveness of state officials to survey follow up requests.
Primary outcome measures
- RPC impact on introduction of evidence-informed bills [Time frame: Baseline, post intervention, and 6-months post intervention]
Secondary outcome measures (4)
- RPC impact on legislators' perceived use of prevention research [Time frame: Baseline, post intervention, and 6 months post-intervention]
- RPC impact on legislators' engagement with prevention researchers [Time frame: Baseline, post collaboration, and 6 months post-intervention]
- RPC impact on state legislators' value of substance misuse prevention science [Time frame: Baseline, post intervention, and 6 months post intervention]
- RPC effectiveness on legislators' awareness of substance misuse prevention science [Time frame: Baseline, post intervention, and 6 months post-intervention]
Eligibility criteria
Inclusion criteria
- State-level public officials
Exclusion criteria
- Anyone who is not a state-level public official
Criteria are shown verbatim from the registry (in English). Final eligibility is always assessed by the study center.
Healthy volunteers: Yes
Study design
- Allocation
- Randomized
- Model
- Parallel assignment
- Masking
- Single blind
- Primary purpose
- Other
Study locations
United States · 1 center
- Penn State University — University Park
Identifiers
NCT: NCT06856148 · STUDY00021641 · R01DA056627