Strengthening partnerships between substance use researchers and policy makers to take advantage of a window of opportunity.
Knowledge transfer
Policy
Substance use disorder
Journal
Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy
ISSN: 1747-597X
Titre abrégé: Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258060
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 03 2019
04 03 2019
Historique:
received:
24
10
2018
accepted:
19
02
2019
entrez:
6
3
2019
pubmed:
6
3
2019
medline:
24
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The 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. We 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. The 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. Recommendations 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The 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.
METHODS
We 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.
RESULTS
The 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.
CONCLUSIONS
Recommendations 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30832690
doi: 10.1186/s13011-019-0199-0
pii: 10.1186/s13011-019-0199-0
pmc: PMC6399875
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
12Subventions
Organisme : NIDA NIH HHS
ID : P30 DA040500
Pays : United States
Références
Milbank Q. 2002;80(1):125-54
pubmed: 11933791
Milbank Q. 2003;81(2):221-48, 171-2
pubmed: 12841049
Am J Prev Med. 2006 Feb;30(2):164-72
pubmed: 16459216
J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006 Winter;26(1):37-45
pubmed: 16557509
Appl Nurs Res. 1991 Feb;4(1):39-45
pubmed: 1741634
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Milbank Q. 2007 Dec;85(4):729-68
pubmed: 18070335
J Addict Med. 2011 Mar;5(1):21-7
pubmed: 21359109
Pain Med. 2011 Apr;12(4):657-67
pubmed: 21392250
Med Care Res Rev. 2014 Feb;71(1):43-60
pubmed: 24051897
Lancet. 2015 Jun 20;385(9986):2445-6
pubmed: 25703107
Psychiatr Serv. 2015 Aug 1;66(8):783-97
pubmed: 25828881
Implement Sci. 2016 Mar 17;11:38
pubmed: 26988000
Pharmacoeconomics. 2016 Sep;34(9):863-87
pubmed: 27002518
Psychiatr Serv. 2017 May 1;68(5):462-469
pubmed: 28045350
JAMA Psychiatry. 2017 May 1;74(5):441-442
pubmed: 28355456
Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Feb 1;69(2):136-146
pubmed: 28967320
J Public Health Manag Pract. 2018 Jan/Feb;24(1):1-3
pubmed: 29189545
Psychiatr Serv. 2018 Oct 1;69(10):1105-1108
pubmed: 29983112
Health Educ Res. 2019 Jan 2;:null
pubmed: 30601978