Who's "in the room where it happens"? A taxonomy and five-step methodology for identifying and characterizing policy actors

被引:8
作者
Cruden, Gracelyn [1 ]
Crable, Erika L. [2 ]
Lengnick-Hall, Rebecca [3 ]
Purtle, Jonathan [4 ]
机构
[1] Chestnut Hlth Syst, Lighthouse Inst Oregon Grp, Eugene, OR 97401 USA
[2] Univ Calif San Diego, Dept Psychiat, San Diego, CA 92103 USA
[3] Washington Univ St Louis, Brown Sch, St Louis, MO USA
[4] NYU, Sch Global Publ Hlth, New York, NY USA
关键词
Policy implementation; Policy actors; Policy implementation strategies; Policymakers; Policy; REPORTING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; PUBLIC-HEALTH; IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE; POLITICS; DISSEMINATION; STRATEGIES; LEGISLATORS;
D O I
10.1186/s43058-023-00492-6
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background Engaging policy actors in research design and execution is critical to increasing the practical relevance and real-world impact of policy-focused dissemination and implementation science. Identifying and selecting which policy actors to engage, particularly actors involved in "Big P" public policies such as laws, is distinct from traditional engaged research methods. This current study aimed to develop a transparent, structured method for iteratively identifying policy actors involved in key policy decisions-such as adopting evidence-based interventions at systems-scale-and to guide implementation study sampling and engagement approaches. A flexible policy actor taxonomy was developed to supplement existing methods and help identify policy developers, disseminators, implementers, enforcers, and influencers. Methods A five-step methodology for identifying policy actors to potentially engage in policy dissemination and implementation research was developed. Leveraging a recent federal policy as a case study-The Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA)-publicly available documentation (e.g., websites, reports) were searched, retrieved, and coded using content analysis to characterize the organizations and individual policy actors in the "room" during policy decisions. Results The five steps are as follows: (1) clarify the policy implementation phase(s) of interest, (2) identify relevant proverbial or actual policymaking "rooms," (3) identify and characterize organizations in the room, (4) identify and characterize policy actors in the "room," and (5) quantify (e.g., count actors across groups), summarize, and compare "rooms" to develop or select engagement approaches aligned with the "room" and actors. The use and outcomes of each step are exemplified through the FFPSA case study. Conclusions The pragmatic and transparent policy actor identification steps presented here can guide researchers' methods for continuous sampling and successful policy actor engagement. Future work should explore the utility of the proposed methods for guiding selection and tailoring of engagement and implementation strategies (e.g., research-policy actor partnerships) to improve both "Big P" and "little p" (administrative guidelines, procedures) policymaking and implementation in global contexts.
引用
收藏
页数:16
相关论文
共 81 条
[1]  
Brownson R.C., Chriqui J.F., Stamatakis K.A., Understanding evidence-based public health policy, Am J Public Health, 99, 9, pp. 1576-1583, (2009)
[2]  
Judge K., Politics and health: policy design and implementation are even more neglected than political values?, Eur J Public Health, 18, 4, pp. 355-356, (2008)
[3]  
Bryson J.M., Crosby B.C., Stone M.M., Designing and implementing cross-sector collaborations: needed and challenging, Public Adm Rev, 75, 5, pp. 647-663, (2015)
[4]  
Cairney P., Oliver K., Wellstead A., To bridge the divide between evidence and policy: reduce ambiguity as much as uncertainty, Public Adm Rev, 76, 3, pp. 399-402, (2016)
[5]  
Nilsen P., Stahl C., Roback K., Cairney P., Never the twain shall meet?-a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research, Implement Sci, 8, 1, (2013)
[6]  
Bullock H.L., Lavis J.N., Wilson M.G., Mulvale G., Miatello A., Understanding the implementation of evidence-informed policies and practices from a policy perspective: a critical interpretive synthesis, Implement Sci, 16, 1, (2021)
[7]  
Kingdon J.W., Stano E., Agendas, alternatives, and public policies, 45, pp. 165-169, (1984)
[8]  
McGinty E.E., Seewald N.J., Bandara S., Cerda M., Daumit G.L., Eisenberg M.D., Et al., Scaling Interventions to manage chronic disease: Innovative methods at the intersection of health policy research and implementation science, Prev Sci, pp. 1-13, (2022)
[9]  
Hoagwood K.E., Purtle J., Spandorfer J., Peth-Pierce R., Horwitz S.M., Aligning dissemination and implementation science with health policies to improve children’s mental health, Am Psychol, 75, 8, (2020)
[10]  
Purtle J., Crable E.L., Cruden G., Lee M., Lengnick-Hall R., Silver D., Et al., Policy dissemination and implementation research, Dissemination and implementation research in health translating science to practice, (2023)