Cargando…

Unintended consequences of disseminating behavioral health evidence to policymakers: Results from a survey-based experiment

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Purtle, Jonathan, Nelson, Katherine L., Lê-Scherban, Félice, Gollust, Sarah E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10170598/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37790180
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/26334895231172807
Descripción
Sumario: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.