Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37379073›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023

Testing Multiple Methods to Effectively Promote Use of a Knowledge Portal to Health Policy Makers: Quasi-Experimental Evaluation.

Matthew Weber, Veronica L Armour, Calandra Lindstadt, Itzhak Yanovitzky

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew WeberDepartment of Communication, School of Communication and Information, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3880-9131
Veronica L ArmourDepartment of Communication, School of Communication and Information, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7248-7861
Calandra LindstadtOffice of Engagement and Extension, Colorado State University, Grand Junction, CO, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4568-2247
Itzhak YanovitzkyDepartment of Communication, School of Communication and Information, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6366-8006
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey · USColorado State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth policy makers and advocates increasingly utilize online resources for policy-relevant knowledge. Knowledge brokering is one potential mechanism to encourage the use of research evidence in policy making, but the mechanisms of knowledge brokerage in online spaces are understudied. This work looks at knowledge brokerage through the launch of Project ASPEN, an online knowledge portal developed in response to a New Jersey legislative act that established a pilot program for adolescent depression screening for young adults in grades 7-12.

objectiveThis study compares the ability to drive policy brief downloads by policy makers and advocates from the Project ASPEN knowledge portal using a variety of online methods to promote the knowledge portal.

methodsThe knowledge portal was launched on February 1, 2022, and a Google Ad campaign was run between February 27, 2022, and March 26, 2022. Subsequently, a targeted social media campaign, an email campaign, and tailored research presentations were used to promote the website. Promotional activities ended on May 31, 2022. Website analytics were used to track a variety of actions including new users coming to the website, page views, and policy brief downloads. Statistical analysis was used to assess the efficacy of different approaches.

resultsThe campaign generated 2837 unique user visits to the knowledge portal and 4713 page views. In addition, the campaign generated 6.5 policy web page views/day and 0.7 policy brief downloads/day compared with 1.8 views/day and 0.5 downloads/day in the month following the campaign. The rate of policy brief page view conversions was significantly higher for Google Ads compared with other channels such as email (16.0 vs 5.4; P<.001) and tailored research presentations (16.0 vs 0.8; P<.001). The download conversion rate for Google Ads was significantly higher compared with social media (1.2 vs 0.1; P<.001) and knowledge brokering activities (1.2 vs 0.2; P<.001). By contrast, the download conversion rate for the email campaign was significantly higher than that for social media (1.0 vs 0.1; P<.001) and tailored research presentations (1.0 vs 0.2; P<.001). While Google Ads for this campaign cost an average of US $2.09 per click, the cost per conversion was US $11 per conversion to drive targeted policy web page views and US $147 per conversion to drive policy brief downloads. While other approaches drove less traffic, those approaches were more targeted and cost-effective.

conclusionsFour tactics were tested to drive user engagement with policy briefs on the Project ASPEN knowledge portal. Google Ads was shown to be effective in driving a high volume of policy web page views but was ineffective in terms of relative costs. More targeted approaches such as email campaigns and tailored research presentations given to policy makers and advocates to promote the use of research evidence on the knowledge portal website are likely to be more effective when balancing goals and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

Health PolicySocial MediaAdolescentHumansPolicy MakingResearch DesignYoung Adultanalyticsdepressiondepression screeningeffectivenessGoogle Adsknowledge brokersknowledge sharingonlinepolicy makingresourcesteenyoung adult

Identifiers

PMID37379073
PMCPMC10365604
OpenAlexW4382344911

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.