Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25927604›Full record

ArticlePreventing chronic disease2015

Getting research to the policy table: a qualitative study with public health researchers on engaging with policy makers.

Jennifer J Otten, Elizabeth A Dodson, Sheila Fleischhacker, Sameer Siddiqi, Emilee L Quinn

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventing chronic disease, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Role of low-impact-factor journals in conservation implementation.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Process Evaluation and Lessons Learned From Engaging Local Policymakers in the B'More Healthy Communities for Kids Trial.Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Networking to Improve Nutrition Policy Research.Preventing chronic disease · 2015
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jennifer J OttenUniversity of Washington, School of Public Health, Nutritional Sciences Program, Box 353410, Seattle, WA 98115. Telephone: 206-221-8233. Email: jotten@uw.edu.
Elizabeth A DodsonBrown School and Prevention Research Center in St Louis, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri.
Sheila FleischhackerThe National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland.
Sameer SiddiqiBloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland.
Emilee L QuinnCenter for Public Health Nutrition, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. At the time of this study, Sameer Siddiqi was with the NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.

Funding

HPDPRC SIP 13-66U48DP001903 · DP · SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY · PI BAKER, ELIZABETH A · 2009 to 2013
$7.3M
Cancer Control Dissemination Research Among State-Level Policy MakersR01CA124404 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BROWNSON, ROSS C · 2007 to 2011
$2.5M
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP001903NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48/DP001903NCI NIH HHS 1R01CA124404-01NCI NIH HHS R01 CA124404
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionLittle attention has been given to how researchers can best provide evidence to policy makers so that it informs policy making. The objectives of this study were to increase understanding about the current state of public health nutrition and obesity researcher practices, beliefs, barriers, and facilitators to communicating and engaging with policy makers, and to identify best practices and suggest improvements.

methodsEighteen semistructured interviews were conducted from 2011 to 2013 with public health nutrition and obesity researchers who were highly involved in communicating research to policy makers. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed to identify common themes.

resultsStudy participants described wide variation in practices for communicating and engaging with policy makers and had mixed beliefs about whether and when researchers should engage. Besides a lack of formal policy communication training, barriers noted were promotion and tenure processes and a professional culture that does not value communicating and engaging with policy makers. Study participants cited facilitators to engaging with policy makers as ranging from the individual level (eg, desire to make a difference, relationships with collaborators) to the institutional level (eg, training/mentorship support, institutional recognition). Other facilitators identified were research- and funding-driven. Promising strategies suggested to improve policy engagement were more formal training, better use of intermediaries, and learning how to cultivate relationships with policy makers.

conclusionStudy findings provide insights into the challenges that will need to be overcome and the strategies that might be tried to improve communication and engagement between public health researchers and policy makers.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeInterdisciplinary CommunicationPolicy MakingPublic HealthAdministrative PersonnelBenchmarkingEvidence-Based PracticeFood Dispensers, AutomaticHealth PolicyHealth Services ResearchHumansInservice TrainingInterprofessional RelationsInterviews as TopicMentorsNutritional Sciences

Identifiers

PMID25927604
PMCPMC4416480

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.