Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28452251›Full record

ArticleInquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing2017

Mutual Distrust: Perspectives From Researchers and Policy Makers on the Research to Policy Gap in 2013 and Recommendations for the Future.

Sarah E Gollust, Jane W Seymour, Maximilian J Pany, Adeline Goss, Zachary F Meisel, David Grande

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing 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

39 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Bridging research-policy gaps: An integrated approach.Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2024
    Article
  15. The Critical Case File Approach: A Novel Tool for Critically Analyzing Mixed-Method Data as Exemplified in a Juvenile Legal Setting.Psychology, public policy, and law : an official law review of the University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Sarah E Gollust1 University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Jane W Seymour2 Boston University School of Public Health, MA, USA.
Maximilian J Pany3 Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Adeline Goss4 Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Zachary F Meisel5 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
David Grande5 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The production of health policy-relevant research is necessary, but not sufficient, to promote its utilization in policy. Our objective was to understand the perspectives of United States' state-level policy makers and health researchers on the barriers and facilitators to the translation of health evidence into the policy process, with a particular focus on issues related to relationship building. We conducted interviews with 215 US health services and health policy researchers and 40 state-level staffers and legislators. Researchers and policy makers faced the same major barrier to research translation: lack of dedicated time to do so. Some policy makers questioned the credibility of research, and researchers questioned policy makers' authentic desire to use evidence in decision making. For some study participants, a mutual mistrust of the other group challenges stronger relationship formation. Interventions are needed to help both groups understand a broader role that research plays in policy making and to increase personal contact, and ultimately trusted relationships, across various actors in the policy process.

Indexed as

Health PolicyPolicy MakingAdultAgedDecision Making, OrganizationalFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchResearch PersonnelTrustUnited Statesdisseminationhealth policyqualitative researchresearch evidence

Identifiers

PMID28452251
PMCPMC5798731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.