ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2026
A Mixed-Methods Study of Policymakers' Adoption of AI to Support Use of Research Evidence: Implications for Artificial Intelligence in Prevention Policy.
Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Policymakers are increasingly adopting artificial intelligence (AI) tools to support legislative decision-making, yet there is limited empirical understanding of how these technologies are used and the implications for evidence-based policymaking. General-purpose AI tools, such as large language models (LLMs), present both opportunities for improved efficiency and risks related to misinformation and lack of transparency. This study examines state legislators' use of AI in policymaking and introduces the AIRE Protocol (AI for Informed and Responsible Evidence-use), a structured framework for developing specialized AI tools grounded in validated evidence. We demonstrate the application of the AIRE Protocol through the development of the Results First AI Assistant, designed to enhance policymakers' access to the Results First Clearinghouse. A mixed-methods approach was used. Forty-five US state legislators participated in live interviews to assess AI adoption patterns, perceived benefits, and concerns. The AIRE Protocol guided the rapid prototyping and iterative development of the AI assistant, with input from policymakers, national policy organizations, and technical experts, resulting in tailored evidence based recommendations. While policymakers expressed interest in AI tools for improving access to information under time constraints, they also raised concerns regarding transparency, reliability, and appropriate use. Our findings suggest that AI tools tailored to policymakers' needs-developed using frameworks like AIRE-will facilitate the integration of validated evidence into legislative decision-making while addressing ethical and practical concerns associated with generalized AI solutions.
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.