ArticleHealth affairs scholar2024
Understanding the factors that impact federal rulemaking: a survey of former EPA regulators.
Article in Health affairs scholar, 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.
- Relationships Matter: Rebuilding Policymaker Trust in Public Health Leadership.American journal of public health · 2026Article
- How can academic researchers more effectively contribute to environmental toxicology and health efforts for regulatory decisions, policymakers, nonprofits, and communities?Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While federal rulemaking is an essential part of American governance, it is not well understood by researchers and advocates. We surveyed 115 former regulators at the Environmental Protection Agency to understand their views on the kinds of information they valued most and their communication preferences (June-August 2023). Respondents highly valued information about the scope of a problem (96%), legal analysis (97%), technology assessments (96%), and impacts of a proposed rule (99%). Regulators had difficulty accessing several kinds of information: 16% of respondents viewed racial equity information as easy to access and 30% thought financial information was easy to access. Respondents valued communications that provided data (99% viewed as effective), made compelling arguments (97%) or technical recommendations (93%), and storytelling (88%). Respondents indicated that the content of comment letters was important: 94% viewed letters containing data as important and 90% valued technical recommendations. Only 22% thought that repetition of the same comments across letters was important. Our findings reveal opportunities for researchers and advocates to help fill information gaps and identify communication strategies that might resonate with federal regulators.
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.