Evaluation of the Research to Policy Collaboration Model

NCT03671434 | Completed

• 1 other identifier: 00010061
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 322
• Locations: 2 countries
• Sites: 3

Brief Summary

This work aims to evaluate an approach for improving federal legislators' use of evidence-known as the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) - which seeks to address known barriers to policymakers' use of research, including a lack of personal contact between researchers and policymakers and limited relevance of research translation efforts to current policy priorities. The RPC involves structured processes for identifying policymakers' priorities, building researchers' capacity for nonpartisan responses to current policy priorities, and facilitating ongoing and productive researcher-policymaker interactions. This implementation of the RPC will focus on child and family policies relevant to child maltreatment. This study assesses both processes for collaboration and policymakers' use of research within a randomized controlled trial (RCT) employing a mixed methods approach-including quantitative and qualitative evaluation of impact. The proposed project will be guided by three overarching questions:

1. 1.How does the RPC impact researchers and legislative staff?
2. 2.How does the RPC impact legislative activity?
3. 3.How might perceptions and experiences of collaboration through the RPC relate to different forms of evidence use among researchers and policymakers?

Conditions

Legislation; Policy; Child Abuse; Family and Household

Keywords

Research; Knowledge Translation; Knowledge Management; Health Policy; Social Policy; Public Policy; Policy Makers; Legislation as Topic; Evidence-based Policy; Use of Research Evidence; Dissemination; Policy Training; Collaboration

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (12)

• Change in Reported Use of Evidence

  Congressional study participants will be asked how often they have accessed research and used research in decision-making processes in the past 3 months.

  Assessed multiple times through study completion, an average of one year.

• Change in Evidence Sources

  Congressional study participants will be asked what sources (e.g., personal contacts, academic journals) use to obtain evidence on policy issues.

  Assessed multiple times through study completion, an average of one year.

• Change in Interactions with Researchers

  Congressional study participants will be asked how often they have interacted with researchers in different settings in the past 3 months.

  Assessed multiple times through study completion, an average of one year.

• Change in Attitudes and Readiness Regarding Evidence Use

  Congressional study participants will be asked how valuable research is perceived by the staff and within the congressional office as a whole, as well as perceived benefit of social science specifically.

  Assessed multiple times through study completion, an average of one year.

• Change in Policy Engagement

  Researcher study participants will be asked how frequently they have engaged with policymakers in different activities and at different stages of the policy process.

  Assessed multiple times through study completion, an average of one year.

• Change in Policy-Informed Research

  Researcher study participants will be asked their perceived value in engaging policymakers in the research process, the extent to which their research activities are informed or guided by policymakers' needs, and the extent to which researchers have actively engaged policymakers in the research process in the last 3 months.

  Assessed multiple times through study completion, an average of one year.

• Change in Policy-Related Self-Efficacy

  Researcher study participants will be asked how confident and prepared they feel about engaging with policymakers.

  Assessed multiple times through study completion, an average of one year.

• Change in Reported Policy Knowledge

  Researcher study participants will be asked the extent to which they understand policy processes and norms, and the degree to which they perceive a need for additional policy training.

  Assessed multiple times through study completion, an average of one year.

• Change in Official Statement Research Use

  Legislators' public statements will be dichotomously coded to indicate any type of research use. These statement-level indicators will be aggregated by legislator.

  Bills that were introduced one year prior to the RPC implementation, during the implementation period and one year following the RPC completion.

• Change in Research Use in Legislation

  Child/Family bills will be dichotomously coded to indicate any type of research use. These statement-level indicators are then aggregated by legislator.

  Bills that were introduced one year prior to the RPC implementation, during the implementation period and one year during or following the RPC completion.

• Change in Intensive Research Use in Legislation

  Each section in child/family bills will be dichotomously coded to indicate any type of research use. Each bill will be scored to indicate a proportion of sections in which evidence is used out of the sum of sections in the bill. These statement-level indicators are then aggregated by legislator.

  Bills that were introduced one year prior to the RPC implementation, during the implementation period and one year during or following the RPC completion.

• Change in Type of Use in Legislation

  Child/family bills will be dichotomously coded to indicate the observation of different types of research use (e.g., conceptual, instrumental). These statement-level indicators are then aggregated by legislator.

  Bills that were introduced one year prior to the RPC implementation, during the implementation period and one year during or following the RPC completion.

Secondary Outcomes (4)

• Satisfaction with Collaboration

  Assessed during the collaboration component of the intervention or up to one year after study initiation.

• Perceived Value of the Partnership

  Assessed during the collaboration component of the intervention or up to one year after study initiation.

• Perceived Impact of the Collaboration

  Assessed during the collaboration component of the intervention or up to one year after study initiation.

• Trust and Respect

  Assessed during the collaboration component of the intervention or up to one year after study initiation.

Study Arms (4)

RPC Researchers

EXPERIMENTAL

Researchers who are assigned to the experimental group that is eligible to receive the full RPC intervention

Behavioral: Research-to-Policy Collaboration

RPC Congressional Offices

EXPERIMENTAL

Congressional offices that are assigned to the experimental group that is eligible to receive the full RPC intervention

Behavioral: Research-to-Policy Collaboration

Control Researchers

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Researchers who are assigned to an Active Comparator control group that is enrolled in a light-touch intervention

Behavioral: Light Touch Policy Training

Control Congressional Offices

NO INTERVENTION

Congressional offices that are assigned to the control group that receives no intervention

Interventions

Research-to-Policy Collaboration BEHAVIORAL

The RPC is a behavioral intervention through which RPC Researchers and RPC Congressional Offices are prepared and matched for collaboration. Specifically, congressional offices are asked to identify opportunities for researcher engagement in policy efforts, researchers with expertise related to policy opportunities are identified and prepared to collaborate with congressional offices, researchers and congressional staff are matched for ongoing collaborative partnerships, and both researchers and congressional staff receive ongoing support to facilitate research translation.

RPC Congressional Offices; RPC Researchers

Light Touch Policy Training BEHAVIORAL

Control Researchers are provided information on policy engagement via email.

Control Researchers

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Participants who voluntarily enlist in the RPC will be asked to participate in the trial.

You may not qualify if:

• Participants who choose to stop participating in the study or the RPC itself. All study participants can choose to opt-out of the study at any time.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Penn State University: lead
• William T. Grant Foundation: collaborator
• Penn State Social Science Research Insititute: collaborator
• London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine: collaborator
• Child Trends: collaborator

Study Sites (3)

Child Trends

Bethesda, Maryland, 20814, United States

Location

Penn State University

University Park, Pennsylvania, 16802, United States

Location

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

London, WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom

Location

Related Publications (2)

• Crowley M, Scott JTB, Fishbein D. Translating Prevention Research for Evidence-Based Policymaking: Results from the Research-to-Policy Collaboration Pilot. Prev Sci. 2018 Feb;19(2):260-270. doi: 10.1007/s11121-017-0833-x.

  PMID: 28849362 BACKGROUND

• Scott JT, Larson JC, Buckingham SL, Maton KI, Crowley DM. Bridging the research-policy divide: Pathways to engagement and skill development. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2019;89(4):434-441. doi: 10.1037/ort0000389.

  PMID: 31305112 BACKGROUND

Related Links

• Describes the intervention

Study Officials

• D. Max Crowley, Ph.D.

  Penn State University

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

• J. Taylor Scott, Ph.D.

  Penn State University

  STUDY DIRECTOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: DOUBLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT, OUTCOMES ASSESSOR
• Masking Details: * Participants: Participants will not be informed of their status as part of an intervention or control group. * Provider: No masking * Investigator: No masking * Outcome Assessor: Survey data will indicate intervention assignment; observational data will be masked such that document coders will not be aware of the condition associated with coded documents.
• Purpose: OTHER
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Assistant Professor of Human Development and Family Studies

Model Details: Participants will be randomly assigned to either a comprehensive intervention or a control group that receives minimal intervention.

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: September 7, 2018
• First Posted: September 14, 2018
• Study Start: January 8, 2019
• Primary Completion: February 17, 2021
• Study Completion: February 17, 2021
• Last Updated: October 28, 2021

Record last verified: 2021-10

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will share
• Shared Documents: STUDY PROTOCOL, SAP, ICF, ANALYTIC CODE
• Time Frame: Anonymous IPD may be shared following or during the publication of summary data. Archival data may be accessed for up to 10 years following the end of the study.
• Access Criteria: Those who request the anonymous IPD must provide a plan of study explaining how the data will be used. Requests may be sent to the Central Contact Person or Central Contact Backup. Requests will be reviewed based on the potential for the planned use of the IPD for advancing scientific knowledge and theory.

Locations

GB (1); US (2)