Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Cancer Causes & Control
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control 8/2016

01-08-2016 | Short Communication

Framing research for state policymakers who place a priority on cancer

Authors: Ross C. Brownson, Elizabeth A. Dodson, Jon F. Kerner, Sarah Moreland-Russell

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 8/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Despite the potential for reducing the cancer burden via state policy change, few data exist on how best to disseminate research information to influence state legislators’ policy choices. We explored: (1) the relative importance of core framing issues (source, presentation, timeliness) among policymakers who prioritize cancer and those who do not prioritize cancer and (2) the predictors of use of research in policymaking.

Methods

Cross-sectional data were collected from US state policymakers (i.e., legislators elected to state houses or senates) from January through October 2012 (n = 862). One-way analysis of variance was performed to investigate the association of the priority of cancer variable with outcome variables. Multivariate logistic regression models examined predictors of the influence of research information.

Results

Legislators who prioritized cancer tended to rate characteristics that make research information useful higher than those who did not prioritize cancer. Among differences that were statistically significant were three items in the “source” domain (relevance, delivered by someone respected, supports one’s own position), one item in the “presentation” domain (telling a story related to constituents) and two items in the “timeliness” domain (high current state priority, feasible when information is received). Participants who prioritized cancer risk factors were 80 % more likely to rate research information as one of their top reasons for choosing an issue on which to work.

Conclusions

Our results suggest the importance of narrative forms of communication and that research information needs to be relevant to the policymakers’ constituents in a brief, concise format.
Literature
1.
Colditz GA, Samplin-Salgado M, Ryan CT, Dart H, Fisher L, Tokuda A, Rockhill B (2002) Harvard report on cancer prevention, volume 5: fulfilling the potential for cancer prevention: policy approaches. Cancer Causes Control 13(3):199–212CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
4.
McGinnis JM, Williams-Russo P, Knickman JR (2002) The case for more active policy attention to health promotion. Health Aff (Millwood) 21(2):78–93CrossRef
5.
6.
Kerner JF, Guirguis-Blake J, Hennessy KD, Brounstein PJ, Vinson C, Schwartz RH, Myers BA, Briss P (2005) Translating research into improved outcomes in comprehensive cancer control. Cancer Causes Control 16(Suppl 1):27–40CrossRefPubMed
7.
Kerner J, Tajima K, Yip CH, Bhattacharyya O, Trapido E, Cazap E, Ullrich A, Fernandez M, Qiao YL, Kim P, Cho J, Sutcliffe C, Sutcliffe S (2012) Knowledge exchange–translating research into practice and policy. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 13(4 Suppl):37–48PubMed
8.
9.
Colditz GA, Gortmaker SL (1995) Cancer prevention strategies for the future: risk identification and preventive intervention. Milbank Q 73(4):621–651CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Brownson RC, Haire-Joshu D, Luke DA (2006) Shaping the context of health: a review of environmental and policy approaches in the prevention of chronic diseases. Annu Rev Public Heal 27:341–370CrossRef
12.
13.
14.
15.
McGowan A, Brownson R, Wilcox L, Mensah G (2006) Prevention and control of chronic diseases. In: Goodman R, Rothstein M, Hoffman R, Lopez W, Matthews G (eds) Law in public health practice, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York
16.
Eyler A, Chriqui J, Moreland-Russell S, Brownson R (eds) (2016) Prevention, policy, and public health. Oxford University Press, New York
17.
CDC (1994) State cancer registries: status of authorizing legislation and enabling regulations–United States, October 1993. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 43(4):71–75
18.
Izquierdo JN, Schoenbach VJ (2000) The potential and limitations of data from population-based state cancer registries. Am J Public Heal 90(5):695–698CrossRef
19.
Black BL, Cowens-Alvarado R, Gershman S, Weir HK (2005) Using data to motivate action: the need for high quality, an effective presentation, and an action context for decision-making. Cancer Causes Control 16(Suppl 1):15–25CrossRefPubMed
20.
21.
Cokkinides V, Bandi P, Shah M, Virgo K, Ward E (2011) The association between state mandates of colorectal cancer screening coverage and colorectal cancer screening utilization among US adults aged 50 to 64 years with health insurance. BMC Heal Serv Res 11:19. doi:10.​1186/​1472-6963-11-19 CrossRef
22.
Akl EA, Oxman AD, Herrin J, Vist GE, Terrenato I, Sperati F, Costiniuk C, Blank D, Schunemann H (2011) Framing of health information messages. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (12):CD006777. doi:10.​1002/​14651858.​CD006777.​pub2
23.
24.
25.
Rothman AJ, Salovey P (1997) Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. Psychol Bull 121(1):3–19CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Fox D (2010) The convergence of science and governance: research, health policy, and American states. University of California Press, Berkeley
28.
Kingdon JW (2010) Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Updated 2nd edn. Longman, Boston
29.
McDonough J (2000) Experiencing politics. A legislator’s stories of government and health care. University of California Press, Berkeley
30.
Dodson EA, Stamatakis KA, Chalifour S, Haire-Joshu D, McBride T, Brownson RC (2012) State legislators’ work on public health-related issues: what influences priorities? J Public Heal Manag Pract 19(1):25–29. doi:10.​1097/​PHH.​0b013e318246475c​ CrossRef
31.
Bogenschneider K, Coorbett T (2010) Evidence-based policymaking: insights from policy-minded researchers and research-minded policy makers. Routledge, New York
32.
Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J (2003) How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q 81(2):221–248CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
34.
Bogenschneider K, Little O, Johnson K (2013) Policymakers’ use of social science research: looking within and across policy actors. J Marriage Fam 75(2):263–275CrossRef
35.
Moreland-Russell S, Barbero C, Andersen S, Geary N, Dodson EA, Brownson RC (2015) “Hearing from all sides” How legislative testimony influences state level policy-makers in the United States. Int J Heal Policy Manag 4(2):91–98. doi:10.​15171/​ijhpm.​2015.​13 CrossRef
36.
Davis JR, Kern TG, Perry MC, Brownson RC, Harmon RG (1989) Survey of cancer control attitudes among Missouri state legislators. Mo Med 86(2):95–98PubMed
37.
Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J (2014) A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Heal Serv Res 14:2. doi:10.​1186/​1472-6963-14-2 CrossRef
38.
Brownson RC, Royer C, Ewing R, McBride TD (2006) Researchers and policymakers: travelers in parallel universes. Am J Prev Med 30(2):164–172CrossRefPubMed
39.
Green M (2006) Narratives and cancer communication. J Commun 56:S163–S183CrossRef
40.
41.
Stamatakis K, McBride T, Brownson R (2010) Communicating prevention messages to policy makers: the role of stories in promoting physical activity. J Phys Act Heal 7(Suppl 1):S00–S107
42.
43.
Dodson EA, Geary NA, Brownson RC (2015) State legislators’ sources and use of information: bridging the gap between research and policy. Heal Educ Res. doi:10.​1093/​her/​cyv044
44.
Kreuter MW, Green MC, Cappella JN, Slater MD, Wise ME, Storey D, Clark EM, O’Keefe DJ, Erwin DO, Holmes K, Hinyard LJ, Houston T, Woolley S (2007) Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: a framework to guide research and application. Ann Behav Med 33(3):221–235CrossRefPubMed
45.
McDonough JE (2001) Using and misusing anecdote in policy making. Heal Aff (Millwood) 20(1):207–212CrossRef
46.
Jewell CJ, Bero LA (2008) “Developing good taste in evidence”: facilitators of and hindrances to evidence-informed health policymaking in state government. Milbank Q 86(2):177–208CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
47.
Nelson D, Hesse B, Croyle R (2009) Making data talk. Communicating public health data to the public. Oxford University Press, New York
48.
Wallack L, Woodruff K, Dorfman L, Diaz I (1999) News for a change an advocate’s guide to working with the media, vol 3. Sage, Thousand Oaks
49.
Slater MD, Kelly KJ, Thackeray R (2006) Segmentation on a shoestring: health audience segmentation in limited-budget and local social marketing interventions. Heal Promot Pract 7(2):170–173CrossRef
50.
51.
52.
Mokdad AH (2009) The behavioral risk factors surveillance system: past, present, and future. Annu Rev Public Heal 30:43–54CrossRef
53.
Jervis KJ (2005) A review of state legislation and a state legislator survey related to not-for-profit hospital tax exemption and health care for the indigent. J Heal Care Finance 32(2):36–71
54.
Sorian R, Baugh T (2002) Power of information: closing the gap between research and policy. When it comes to conveying complex information to busy policy-makers, a picture is truly worth a thousand words. Heal Aff (Millwood) 21(2):264–273CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Framing research for state policymakers who place a priority on cancer
Authors
Ross C. Brownson
Elizabeth A. Dodson
Jon F. Kerner
Sarah Moreland-Russell
Publication date
01-08-2016
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 8/2016
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-016-0771-0

Other articles of this Issue 8/2016

Cancer Causes & Control 8/2016 Go to the issue

Original paper

Inequalities in cancer incidence and mortality across medium to highly developed countries in the twenty-first century

Original paper

Inflammatory potential of diet and risk of laryngeal cancer in a case–control study from Italy

Original paper

A prospective study of angiogenic markers and postmenopausal breast cancer risk in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial

Original paper

Determinants of cancer screening in Asian-Americans

Original paper

Temporal changes in loss of life expectancy due to cancer in Australia: a flexible parametric approach

Original Paper

Estimating the prevalence of hematological malignancies and precursor conditions using data from Haematological Malignancy Research Network (HMRN)
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits