Symposia
Dissemination & Implementation Science
Patrick O'Neill, B.A.
Graduate Student
Columbia University
Elizabeth Long, Ph.D.
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
Jessica Pugel, MA
Research Associate
Evidence-to-Impact Collaborative, Penn State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
D. Max Crowley, PhD
Associate Professor; Co-Director of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration; Director of the Evidence-to-Impact Collaborative
Evidence-to-Impact Collaborative, Penn State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
J. Taylor Scott, PhD
Assistant Research Professor; Co-Director of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration; Director of Research Translation with the Evidence-to-Impact Collaborative
Evidence-to-Impact Collaborative, Penn State University
University Park, Pennsylvania
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic and issues it has exacerbated (e.g., substance use, racial inequities, police brutality, etc.) have highlighted the critical need for science to inform responses to such emergencies. To best ensure the science is heard and is heard in time, researchers need to know evidence-based strategies for communicating scientific research to policymakers. However, specific strategies for such science communication are often not examined (e.g., wording, formatting choices, senders). In light of this, we developed the Science Communication Optimizer for Policy Engagement (SCOPE), a replicable model shown to increase the reach and use of research evidence in policymaking through enhanced disseminations and continuous quality improvement (CQI) measures. As part of its CQI, the SCOPE model involves experimentally evaluating different message characteristics to optimize the reach of messages. In this presentation, we will discuss what was learned through these experiments.
Methods: From March 2020 through March 2021, over 75 rapid-cycle randomized controlled trials were conducted as part of SCOPE's CQI process. We tested the effects of different email subject lines, bodies, and senders on the number of email opens and URL clicks. Participants included state legislators, their staff, and federal staff who work on committees related to health, education/children, judiciary, and race, N(min) = 3500, N(max) = 9000.
Results: Through these trials, we learned 6 best practices for science communication via email with policymakers. These include: cueing relevance, keeping it short, being personal/using narratives, being transparent that the email is about science, avoiding clickbait-like tactics, and evoking emotions authentically. We also learned that framing as a problem may debilitate action, policymakers’ email behavior varies, context matters, and that routine evaluation is critical.
Conclusion: This work can help cut through the noise to increase the reach of critical research to policymakers who can use it to inform responses to and prevent emergencies. Further, by bridging the gap between policymakers and researchers across a variety of disciplines, we can facilitate the uptake of cognitive and behavioral science to effect impactful change.