Trial reportFrontiers in public health2024
Effectively communicating with local policymakers: a randomized trial of policy brief dissemination to address obesity.
Trial report in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging theory and practice: a qualitative interview study of barriers to and facilitators of research collaborations between academia and public health services in Germany.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- Analysis of the Awareness and Access of Eye Healthcare in Underserved Populations.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Evidence-based policies are a powerful tool for impacting health and addressing obesity. Effectively communicating evidence to policymakers is critical to ensure evidence is incorporated into policies. While all public health is local, limited knowledge exists regarding effective approaches for improving local policymakers' uptake of evidence-based policies. Methods: Local policymakers were randomized to view one of four versions of a policy brief (usual care, narrative, risk-framing, and narrative/risk-framing combination). They then answered a brief survey including questions about their impressions of the brief, their likelihood of using it, and how they determine legislative priorities. Results: Responses from 331 participants indicated that a majority rated local data (92%), constituent needs/opinions (92%), and cost-effectiveness data (89%) as important or very important in determining what issues they work on. The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that briefs were understandable (87%), believable (77%), and held their attention (74%) with no brief version rated significantly higher than the others. Across the four types of briefs, 42% indicated they were likely to use the brief. Logistic regression models showed that those indicating that local data were important in determining what they work on were over seven times more likely to use the policy brief than those indicating that local data were less important in determining what they work on (aOR = 7.39, 95% CI = 1.86,52.57). Discussion: Among local policymakers in this study there was no dominant format or type of policy brief; all brief types were rated similarly highly. This highlights the importance of carefully crafting clear, succinct, credible, and understandable policy briefs, using different formats depending on communication objectives. Participants indicated a strong preference for receiving materials incorporating local data. To ensure maximum effect, every effort should be made to include data relevant to a policymaker's local area in policy communications.
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.