Trial reportThe American psychologist2021
Cultivating researcher-policymaker partnerships: A randomized controlled trial of a model for training public psychologists.
Trial report in The American psychologist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Contexts for Scaling Up Evidence-Based Preventive Interventions: Examining Factors That Influence the Likelihood of the Use of Research Language in Substance Use Legislation.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026Article
- A Mixed-Methods Study of Policymakers' Adoption of AI to Support Use of Research Evidence: Implications for Artificial Intelligence in Prevention Policy.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026Article
- The complex truth about trust in science.Nature · 2026Article
- Shifting the paradigm of research-to-policy impact: Infrastructure for improving researcher engagement and collective action.Development and psychopathology · 2024Article
- The power of lived experience in optimizing US policymakers' engagement with substance use research: A series of rapid-cycle randomized controlled trials.Drug and alcohol dependence reports · 2024Article
- Integrated Prevention Infrastructure: A Framework for Addressing Social Determinants of Health in Substance Use Policy Making.Focus (American Psychiatric Publishing) · 2024Article
- Cutting through the noise during crisis by enhancing the relevance of research to policymakers.Evidence & policy : a journal of research, debate and practice · 2023Article
- We still cannot breathe: Applying intersectional ecological model to COVID-19 survivorship.Rehabilitation psychology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Key to bringing psychological science to bear on public policy is developing scholars' engagement and rapport with policymakers. Scholars benefit from support navigating the policy arena in ways that strengthen their independent policy engagement. This study presents findings from a randomized controlled trial of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) model, which develops and trains a rapid response network of researchers to respond to legislative requests for scientific evidence. Researchers were surveyed on their concerns about how policymakers support or use scientific research, how they engaged with policymakers, and perceived benefits to their research. Researchers randomized to the RPC reported fewer concerns about policymakers' support and use of research, greater involvement in supporting policymakers' understanding of problems (i.e., conceptual use), and more responses to external prompts for their involvement. Subgroup analyses examined how experiences differed for those identifying as Black, Indigenous, or Person of Color (BIPOC). At baseline, BIPOC-identifying researchers perceived greater costs of policy engagement and reported less involvement in supporting conceptual or instrumental uses of research than White-identifying researchers. Subsequent to the RPC, BIPOC-identifying researchers in the intervention group were reportedly less concerned about federal support of science, more engaged in supporting conceptual uses of research, and perceived greater benefits of policy engagement for their research than BIPOC-identifying researchers in the control group. These differences were not observed among White-identifying researchers. Findings are discussed in light of disparities experienced by marginalized scholars, the ways in which resources and supports may counteract these challenges, and possible strategies to strengthen public psychology overall. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.