Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30231934›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2018

Audience segmentation to disseminate behavioral health evidence to legislators: an empirical clustering analysis.

Jonathan Purtle, Félice Lê-Scherban, Xi Wang, Paul T Shattuck, Enola K Proctor, Ross C Brownson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
15.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Recommendations for the management of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic multidisciplinary Delphi consensus approach.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jonathan PurtleDepartment of Health Management & Policy, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, 3215 Market St., Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. JPP46@Drexel.edu.
Félice Lê-ScherbanDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Xi WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Paul T ShattuckDepartment of Health Management & Policy, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, 3215 Market St., Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Enola K ProctorCenter for Mental Health Services Research, Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Ross C BrownsonPrevention Research Center in St. Louis, Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Drexel University · USFrontLine Service · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

IMPLEMENTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES IRI-MHSR25MH080916 · NIMH · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Byron James Powell · 2009 to 2026
$3.7M
Audience Research to Disseminate Mental Health Evidence to PolicymakersR21MH111806 · NIMH · DREXEL UNIVERSITY · PI PURTLE, JONATHAN · 2016 to 2017
$430k
NIMH NIH HHS R21 MH111806NIMH NIH HHS R21MH111806NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH080916NIMH NIH HHS R25MH080916
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

PoliticsHumansImplementation ScienceInformation DisseminationLatent Class AnalysisLogistic ModelsMental DisordersMental Health ServicesSex FactorsSubstance-Related DisordersUnited StatesAudience segmentationDisseminationLatent class analysisPolicymakerState legislatorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID30231934
PMCPMC6148796
OpenAlexW2891331873

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.