BackgroundPolicy has a tremendous potential to improve population health when informed by research evidence. Such evidence, however, typically plays a suboptimal role in policymaking processes. The field of policy dissemination and implementation research (policy D&I) exists to address this challenge. The purpose of this study was to: (1) determine the extent to which policy D&I was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), (2) identify trends in NIH-funded policy D&I, and (3) describe characteristics of NIH-funded policy D&I projects.MethodsThe NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was used to identify all projects funded through D&I-focused funding announcements. We screened for policy D&I projects by searching project title, abstract, and term fields for mentions of “policy,” “policies,” “law,” “legal,” “legislation,” “ordinance,” “statute,” “regulation,” “regulatory,” “code,” or “rule.” A project was classified as policy D&I if it explicitly proposed to conduct research about the content of a policy, the process through which it was developed, or outcomes it produced. A coding guide was iteratively developed, and all projects were independently coded by two researchers. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to obtain additional project information and validate coding decisions. Descriptive statistics—stratified by funding mechanism, Institute, and project characteristics—were produced.ResultsBetween 2007 and 2014, 146 projects were funded through the D&I funding announcements, 12 (8.2 %) of which were policy D&I. Policy D&I funding totaled $16,177,250, equivalent to 10.5 % of all funding through the D&I funding announcements. The proportion of funding for policy D&I projects ranged from 14.6 % in 2007 to 8.0 % in 2012. Policy D&I projects were primarily focused on policy outcomes (66.7 %), implementation (41.7 %), state-level policies (41.7 %), and policies within the USA (83.3 %). Tobacco (33.3 %) and cancer (25.0 %) control were the primary topics of focus. Many projects combined survey (58.3 %) and interview (33.3 %) methods with analysis of archival data sources.ConclusionsNIH has made an initial investment in policy D&I research, but the level of support has varied between Institutes. Policy D&I researchers have utilized a variety of designs, methods, and data sources to investigate the development processes, content, and outcomes of public and private policies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0367-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Enthusiasm for trauma-informed practice has increased dramatically. Organizational interventions that train staff about trauma-informed practice are frequently used to promote trauma-informed systems change, but evidence about these interventions' effects has not been integrated. A systematic review was conducted of studies that evaluated the effects of organizational interventions that included a "trauma-informed" staff training component. A search was conducted in July 2017 and studies were identified in PubMed, PsycINFO, and the Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress database, limited to articles published in English after 2000. Six hundred and thirty-two articles were screened and 23 met inclusion criteria. Seventeen studies used a single group pretest/posttest design, five used a randomized controlled design, and one used a quasi-experimental design with a nonrandomized control group. The duration of trauma-informed trainings ranged from 1 hr to multiple days. Staff knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to trauma-informed practice improved significantly pre-/posttraining in 12 studies and 7 studies found that these improvements were retained at ≥1month follow-up. Eight studies assessed the effects of a trauma-informed organizational intervention on client outcomes, five of which found statistically significantly improvements. The strength of evidence about trauma-informed organization intervention effects is limited by an abundance of single group, pretest/posttest designs with short follow-up periods, unsophisticated analytic approaches, and inconsistent use of assessment instruments. In addition to addressing these methodological limitations, priorities for future research include understanding intervention effects on clients' perceptions of care and the mechanisms through which changes in staff knowledge and attitudes about trauma-informed practice influence client outcomes.

No abstract

Context: Depression among older adults (≥age 60) is a problem that could be exacerbated by global trends in urbanization and population aging. The study purpose was to assess whether urban, relative to rural, residence is associated with depression among older adults and whether associations differ in countries with developed versus developing economies.Context: Depression among older adults (aged 60 years or older) is a problem that could be exacerbated by global trends in urbanization and population aging. The study purpose was to assess whether urban, relative to rural, residence is associated with depression among older adults and whether associations differ in countries with developed versus developing economies. Evidence acquisition:In 2017, the authors identified and extracted information from comparative studies of urban-rural depression prevalence among older adults. Studies were identified in PubMed, PsychINFO, and Web of Science and limited to English language articles published after 1985. Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria. Random effects meta-analysis was conducted to produce weighted pooled ORs estimating the association between urban-rural residence and depression for all study participants (N=31,598) and sub-analyses were conducted for developed (n=12,728) and developing (n=18,870) countries.Evidence synthesis: Depression prevalence was significantly higher among urban residents in ten studies and significantly higher among rural residents in three studies (all three conducted in China). Associations between urban-rural residence and depression generally remained significant after adjusting for covariates. In developed countries, the odds of depression were significantly higher among urban than rural residents (pooled OR=1.44, 95% CI=1.10, 1.88).However, in developing countries, this association was not observed (pooled OR=0.91, 95% CI=0.46, 1.77). Conclusions:Converging trends of urbanization and population aging could increase the global burden of depression among older adults. The pathways through which urban-rural residence influences depression risk among older adults might differ by country context. Future research should focus on measuring variation in these contexts. 3CONTEXT Human longevity is increasing, and the demographic composition of societies is aging. Between 2015 and 2050, global life expectancy at birth is projected to increase from 70 to 77 years. 1 By 2050, the proportion of the world's population aged more than 60 years is projected to double and the proportion aged more than 80 years is projected to triple. 2,3 In Europe, the proportion of the population aged more than 60 years is expected to increase from 24% to 34% between 2015 and 2050. Increasing trends are also expected in Latin America (from 11% to 26%), North America (from 21% to 28%), and Asia (from 12% to 25%). 3 These increases in longevity pose challenges for policymakers as they are forced to address the implications of population aging within the context of other societal changes. As Beard and Bloom descr...

Background Public policy has tremendous impacts on population health. While policy development has been extensively studied, policy implementation research is newer and relies largely on qualitative methods. Quantitative measures are needed to disentangle differential impacts of policy implementation determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) and outcomes to ensure intended benefits are realized. Implementation outcomes include acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, compliance/fidelity, feasibility, penetration, sustainability, and costs. This systematic review identified quantitative measures that are used to assess health policy implementation determinants and outcomes and evaluated the quality of these measures. Methods Three frameworks guided the review: Implementation Outcomes Framework (Proctor et al.), Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (Damschroder et al.), and Policy Implementation Determinants Framework (Bullock et al.). Six databases were searched: Medline, CINAHL Plus, PsycInfo, PAIS, ERIC, and Worldwide Political. Searches were limited to English language, peer-reviewed journal articles published January 1995 to April 2019. Search terms addressed four levels: health, public policy, implementation, and measurement. Empirical studies of public policies addressing physical or behavioral health with quantitative self-report or archival measures of policy implementation with at least two items assessing implementation outcomes or determinants were included. Consensus scoring of the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale assessed the quality of measures. Results Database searches yielded 8417 non-duplicate studies, with 870 (10.3%) undergoing full-text screening, yielding 66 studies. From the included studies, 70 unique measures were identified to quantitatively assess implementation outcomes and/or determinants. Acceptability, feasibility, appropriateness, and compliance were the most commonly measured implementation outcomes. Common determinants in the identified measures were organizational culture, implementation climate, and readiness for implementation, each aspects of the internal setting. Pragmatic quality ranged from adequate to good, with most measures freely available, brief, and at high school reading level. Few psychometric properties were reported. Conclusions Well-tested quantitative measures of implementation internal settings were under-utilized in policy studies. Further development and testing of external context measures are warranted. This review is intended to stimulate measure development and high-quality assessment of health policy implementation outcomes and determinants to help practitioners and researchers spread evidence-informed policies to improve population health. Registration Not registered

During local SSB tax policy development processes, LHD officials and other advocates should encourage policymakers to design SSB tax policies so that revenue is directed toward community investments for which broad public support exists. When communicating with policymakers and the public, LHDs should consider emphasizing how SSB tax revenue will be used in addition to presenting evidence about the potential health benefits of the SSB tax at the local level.

No abstract

BackgroundElected officials (e.g., legislators) are an important but understudied population in dissemination research. Audience segmentation is essential in developing dissemination strategies that are tailored for legislators with different characteristics, but sophisticated audience segmentation analyses have not been conducted with this population. An empirical clustering audience segmentation study was conducted to (1) identify behavioral health (i.e., mental health and substance abuse) audience segments among US state legislators, (2) identify legislator characteristics that are predictive of segment membership, and (3) determine whether segment membership is predictive of support for state behavioral health parity laws.MethodsLatent class analysis (LCA) was used. Data were from a multi-modal (post-mail, e-mail, telephone) survey of state legislators fielded in 2017 (N = 475). Nine variables were included in the LCA (e.g., perceptions of behavioral health treatment effectiveness, mental illness stigma). Binary logistic regression tested associations between legislator characteristics (e.g., political party, gender, ideology) and segment membership. Multi-level logistic regression assessed the predictive validity of segment membership on support for parity laws. A name was developed for each segment that captured its most salient features.ResultsThree audience segments were identified. Budget-oriented skeptics with stigma (47% of legislators) had the least faith in behavioral health treatment effectiveness, had the most mental illness stigma, and were most influenced by budget impact. This segment was predominantly male, Republican, and ideologically conservative. Action-oriented supporters (24%) were most likely to have introduced a behavioral health bill, most likely to identify behavioral health issues as policy priorities, and most influenced by research evidence. This was the most politically and ideologically diverse segment. Passive supporters (29%) had the greatest faith in treatment effectiveness and the least stigma, but were also least likely to have introduced a behavioral health bill. Segment membership was a stronger predictor of support for parity laws than almost all other legislator characteristics.ConclusionsState legislators are a heterogeneous audience when it comes to behavioral health. There is a need to develop and test behavioral health evidence dissemination strategies that are tailored for legislators in different audience segments. Empirical clustering approaches to audience segmentation are a potentially valuable tool for dissemination science.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0816-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.