Strengthening partnerships between substance use researchers and policy makers to take advantage of a window of opportunity

被引:13
|
作者
Meisel, Zachary F. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Mitchell, Julia [2 ]
Polsky, Daniel [2 ,3 ]
Boualam, Nada [3 ]
McGeoch, Ellen [3 ]
Weiner, Janet [2 ,3 ]
Miclette, Matthew [2 ]
Purtle, Jonathan [4 ]
Schackman, Bruce [2 ,5 ]
Cannuscio, Carolyn C. [1 ,3 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Ctr Emergency Care Policy & Res, Blockley Hall,423 Guardian Dr,Room 413, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[2] Ctr Hlth Econ Treatment Intervent Subst Use Disor, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[3] Leonard Davis Inst Hlth Econ, 3641 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[4] Drexel Univ, Dornsife Sch Publ Hlth, 3215 Market St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[5] Weill Cornell Med Coll, 425 East 61st St,Suite 301, New York, NY 10065 USA
[6] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Dept Family Med & Community Hlth, 3620 Hamilton Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
关键词
Substance use disorder; Policy; Knowledge transfer; OPIOID USE; KNOWLEDGE; STIGMA;
D O I
10.1186/s13011-019-0199-0
中图分类号
R194 [卫生标准、卫生检查、医药管理];
学科分类号
摘要
BackgroundThe National Institute on Drug Abuse has identified a persistent research-to-practice gap in the implementation of evidence-based prevention and treatment programs for substance use disorder. To identify mechanisms to close this gap, we sought to obtain and characterize the range of policy makers' perspectives on the use of research in substance use disorder treatment and coverage decisions.MethodsWe conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of eighteen policy makers involved in the delivery of health services. The aim was to identify barriers and facilitators, attitudes, beliefs, and experiences surrounding the use of research related to the treatment and economics of substance use disorder.ResultsThe analysis generated four themes: 1) policy maker engagement with evidence and researchers; 2) strategic use and usefulness of research; 3) scientific rigor versus relevance; and 4) communication of evidence. Within each theme, the participants identified barriers, facilitators, current practice, and gave their perspectives on ideal conditions for research design, conduct and communication.ConclusionsRecommendations for investigators are the following actionable steps: 1) partner with policy makers early in the research process, 2) formulate and use research designs to meet the strategic goals of end-users; 3) systematically test alternative phrasing of scientific terminology - particularly in the realm of cost effectiveness research - that allow end users to better understand and repurpose the data; 4) incorporate qualitative research methods to uncover the narratives that explain the context and relevance of evidence; 5) incorporate study designs that prioritize timeliness of results; and 6) promote and reward researcher involvement in policy discussions.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条