Symposia
Dissemination & Implementation Science
Jonathan Purtle, DrPH, MSc
Associate Professor
New York University
New York, New York
Katherine Nelson, PhD
PhD candidate (at time of study)
Drexel University School of Public Health (at time of study)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Sarah Gollust, PhD
Associate Professor
University Of Minnesota School Of Public Health
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Background: We conducted three experiments to improve the dissemination of evidence about adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) being risk factors for behavioral health conditions. In a field experiment with U.S. state legislators, we found that including state-tailored economic evidence about ACEs in dissemination materials increased engagement with dissemination materials (measured by e-mail views). In a survey-based experiment with the U.S. general public, we found that messages about the economic impacts of ACEs increased support for policies to address ACEs, but also increased parental blame for ACEs. The current study builds on this work by presenting results from a web-based survey-based experiment with U.S. state legislators/staffers.
Methods: At the beginning of the survey, legislators/staffers (N= 151) were shown a one-page policy brief that corresponded with the condition to which their legislative office was randomized. We compare respondents who were randomized to a state-tailored policy brief with state-level data about ACEs in the respondent’s state (intervention condition) and those randomized to a non-tailored policy brief with national data about ACEs. Respondents answered survey questions after viewing the brief. Perceived relevance of the policy brief was measured by two 7-point Likert scale items which assessed the extent to which the brief was relevant to respondents “in [their] work” and “residents in [their] state.” These items were summed to create a relevance score (α= .70, r = .56). Parent blame for the behavioral health consequences of ACEs was measured by a 7-point Likert scale item which assessed the extent to which “parents of children who have experienced [ACEs] are to blame for mental health and substance use problems their children develop as adults.”
Results: The mean policy brief relevance score was 5.8% higher in the intervention than control condition (12.4 vs. 11.7, F= 2.87, p= .09). However, the mean parental blame score was 15.0% higher in the intervention than control condition (4.58 vs. 3.94, F= 5.61, p= .02). When respondents were stratified by political party affiliation, the effect of the intervention condition on parental blame was significant among Democrats (F= 7.52, p= .007) but not Republicans (F= 0.17, p= .69).
Conclusions: Tailoring policy briefs with state data might increase their perceived relevance among policymakers, which could lead to increases engagement with briefs. However, such engagement could have the unintended consequence of changing some attitudes in undesirable ways.