Testing Strategies to Improve Substance Misuse Prevention Research Use in State Policy Contexts

NCT06856148 | Recruiting

• 2 other identifiers: STUDY00021641R01DA056627
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 300
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

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.

Conditions

Substance Abuse; Substance Use Disorders; Prevention; Legislation; Use of Research Evidence

Keywords

Randomized Control Trial; Substance Abuse Prevention; Substance Misuse Prevention; Prevention Policy; Evidence-Based Policy; Policymaking; Research Communications; Research Translation; Public Policy; Public Health

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• RPC impact on introduction of evidence-informed bills

  Assessment of use of research evidence in bills introduced during the intervention period. It is anticipated that legislators will introduce over 5,000 bills relating to substance use are. These bills will be coded for presence of evidence markers using a validated, deductive codebook to identify how legislators use research evidence in legislative language. A subset of these bills (N = 150) will be reviewed by trained coders to identify the form (i.e. direct or indirect) and the goal of evidence use (i.e., sharing the cause of the problem, status of the problem, solving the problem, generating new knowledge, or accountability). Observed use of research evidence in bills will be quantified and analyzed in a series of multi-level models to test change across three time points.

  Baseline, post intervention, and 6-months post intervention

Secondary Outcomes (4)

• RPC impact on legislators' perceived use of prevention research

  Baseline, post intervention, and 6 months post-intervention

• RPC impact on legislators' engagement with prevention researchers

  Baseline, post collaboration, and 6 months post-intervention

• RPC impact on state legislators' value of substance misuse prevention science

  Baseline, post intervention, and 6 months post intervention

• RPC effectiveness on legislators' awareness of substance misuse prevention science

  Baseline, post intervention, and 6 months post-intervention

Study Arms (2)

Intervention Group

EXPERIMENTAL

Legislative offices who receive the full Research-to-Policy Model intervention.

Behavioral: Intervention: RPC Group

Control Group

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Legislative Offices who do not receive the full RPC Model intervention.

Behavioral: Active Comparator: Control Group

Interventions

Intervention: RPC Group BEHAVIORAL

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 coalition building…; provide leadership and training, and foster safe and healthful environments". Specifically, implementation of the RPC model explicitly does not attempt to influence legislative actions, but instead facilitates honest brokerage in which researchers discuss evidence without indicating opinion or stance on how legislators should change specific policies, programs, or regulations.

Intervention Group

Active Comparator: Control Group BEHAVIORAL

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.

Control Group

Eligibility Criteria

• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Child (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• State-level public officials

You may not qualify if:

• Anyone who is not a state-level public official

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Penn State University: lead
• National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA): collaborator

Study Sites (1)

Penn State University

University Park, Pennsylvania, 16802, United States

RECRUITING

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Substance-Related Disorders

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Chemically-Induced Disorders; Mental Disorders

Central Study Contacts

Daniel M Crowley, Ph.D

CONTACT

866-905-1872; dmc397@psu.edu

Jennifer T Scott, Ph.D

CONTACT

864-431-2411; jxs1622@psu.edu

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: SINGLE
• Who Masked: PARTICIPANT
• Purpose: OTHER
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Studies

Model Details: Sampled states' legislatures will be randomly assigned to either a comprehensive intervention or a control group that receives minimal intervention.

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: February 19, 2025
• First Posted: March 4, 2025
• Study Start: April 1, 2023
• Primary Completion (Estimated): March 31, 2027
• Study Completion (Estimated): March 31, 2027
• Last Updated: March 6, 2025

Record last verified: 2025-03

Locations

US (1)