Background. Existing cancer control knowledge is not systematically disseminated and applied-state-level policy makers are in positions to affect programs and services related to cancer control. Environmental and policy interventions show great promise for reducing the cancer burden. Goal. Our primary goal is to increase the dissemination of evidence-based interventions to control cancer, primarily focusing on the uptake of effective environmental and policy approaches among state-level policy makers. Methods and evaluation. To advance dissemination science, our approach evaluates data (""""""""usual care"""""""") and narrative approaches. Data-based approaches are used by health experts typically trained to summarize scientific information using empirical statistics and facts. Narrative dissemination turns scientific data into compelling stones showing how evidence-based interventions can affect the daily lives of people. These narrative forms of communication are emerging as important tools for cancer prevention and control. This project will occur in two parts. Phase 1 research involves an individually-randomized experiment in which delivery methods (data versus narrative) are compared among three key groups of policy makers: legislators, legislative staffers, and executive branch administrative leaders. Phase 2 builds on Phase 1, using a group-randomized effectiveness experiment to actively disseminate evidence-based cancer control interventions in 10 states (along with 10 control states). In Phase 2, we extend our work to practitioners, who are important conduits to legislative branch leaders and senior administrators in the executive branch. Dissemination activities in Phase 2 include tool development (e.g., policy briefs), skill enhancement (e.g., dissemination workshops), and application (e.g., enhanced awareness of evidence-based interventions). Evaluation of Phase 2 interventions will rely on three sources of data: 1) measures of dissemination based on self-reported surveys from practitioners;2) review and abstraction of state-level cancer control records;and 3) a content analysis of relevant state-level legislation (both introduced and enacted bills). We also will conduct process evaluation. Dissemination and innovations. Concurrent with Phase 2, we will begin efforts to design for dissemination. The intent of these activities is to ensure that findings from our grant are useful, relevant, and ready for widespread dissemination when funding ends. We will assemble and work with an advisory group, capture project costs, conduct qualitative case studies, and sponsor a dissemination conference. Policy-relevant dissemination of evidence-based practice is highly innovative yet is an area that remains largely uncharted. Our project advances the field by better understanding the role of narrative communication in shaping policy. Relevance. This project is relevant to public health because it addresses behaviors that lead to significant premature cancer morbidity and mortality. Sparse knowledge exists regarding effective approaches for dissemination of research-tested interventions among """"""""real world"""""""" policy audiences. Upon completion, our study will provide policy-relevant dissemination strategies that can be adapted to other settings and risk factors.

Agency
National Institute of Health (NIH)
Institute
National Cancer Institute (NCI)
Type
Research Project (R01)
Project #
5R01CA124404-05
Application #
8119774
Study Section
Special Emphasis Panel (ZRG1-HOP-S (51))
Program Officer
Agurs-Collins, Tanya
Project Start
2007-09-27
Project End
2013-07-31
Budget Start
2011-08-01
Budget End
2013-07-31
Support Year
5
Fiscal Year
2011
Total Cost
$469,557
Indirect Cost
Name
Washington University
Department
Type
Schools of Social Work
DUNS #
068552207
City
Saint Louis
State
MO
Country
United States
Zip Code
63130
Purtle, Jonathan; Dodson, Elizabeth A; Brownson, Ross C (2016) Uses of Research Evidence by State Legislators Who Prioritize Behavioral Health Issues. Psychiatr Serv 67:1355-1361
Reis, Rodrigo S; Salvo, Deborah; Ogilvie, David et al. (2016) Scaling up physical activity interventions worldwide: stepping up to larger and smarter approaches to get people moving. Lancet 388:1337-48
Otten, Jennifer J; Dodson, Elizabeth A; Fleischhacker, Sheila et al. (2015) Getting research to the policy table: a qualitative study with public health researchers on engaging with policy makers. Prev Chronic Dis 12:E56
Tabak, R G; Eyler, A A; Dodson, E A et al. (2015) Accessing evidence to inform public health policy: a study to enhance advocacy. Public Health 129:698-704
Dodson, Elizabeth A; Geary, Nora A; Brownson, Ross C (2015) State legislators' sources and use of information: bridging the gap between research and policy. Health Educ Res 30:840-8
Dodson, Elizabeth A; Langston, Marvin; Cardick, Lauren C et al. (2014) ""Everyone should be able to choose how they get around"": how Topeka, Kansas, passed a complete streets resolution. Prev Chronic Dis 11:E25
Dodson, Elizabeth A; Stamatakis, Katherine A; Chalifour, Stephanie et al. (2013) State legislators' work on public health-related issues: what influences priorities? J Public Health Manag Pract 19:25-9
Tabak, Rachel G; Khoong, Elaine C; Chambers, David A et al. (2012) Bridging research and practice: models for dissemination and implementation research. Am J Prev Med 43:337-50
Dodson, Elizabeth A; Eyler, Amy A; Chalifour, Stephanie et al. (2012) A review of obesity-themed policy briefs. Am J Prev Med 43:S143-8
Rabin, Borsika A; Purcell, Peyton; Naveed, Sana et al. (2012) Advancing the application, quality and harmonization of implementation science measures. Implement Sci 7:119

Showing the most recent 10 out of 15 publications