TY - JOUR
T1 - Unintended consequences of disseminating behavioral health evidence to policymakers
T2 - Results from a survey-based experiment
AU - Purtle, Jonathan
AU - Nelson, Katherine L.
AU - Lê-Scherban, Félice
AU - Gollust, Sarah E.
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (grant no 76069).
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2023.
PY - 2023/1/1
Y1 - 2023/1/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - dissemination
KW - dissemination evaluation
KW - policy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85158924249&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85158924249&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/26334895231172807
DO - 10.1177/26334895231172807
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85158924249
SN - 2633-4895
VL - 4
JO - Implementation Research and Practice
JF - Implementation Research and Practice
ER -