Cutting through the noise during crisis by enhancing the relevance of research to policymakers

Background:It is widely recognised that policymakers use research deemed relevant, yet little is understood about ways to enhance perceived relevance of research evidence. Observing policymakers' access of research online provides a pragmatic way to investigate predictors of relevance.Aims and objectives:This study investigates a range of relevance indicators including committee assignments, public statements, issue prevalence, or the policymaker's name or district.Methods:In a series of four rapid-cycle randomised control trials (RCTs), the present work systematically explores science communication strategies by studying indicators of perceived relevance. State legislators, state staffers, and federal staffers were emailed fact sheets on issues of COVID (Trial 1, N = 3403), exploitation (Trial 2, N = 6846), police violence (Trial 3, N = 3488), and domestic violence (Trial 4, N = 3888).Findings:Across these trials, personalising the subject line to the legislator's name or district and targeting recipients based on committee assignment consistently improved engagement. Mentions of subject matter in public statements was inconsistently associated, and state-level prevalence of the issue was largely not associated with email engagement behaviour.Discussion and conclusions:Together, these results indicate a benefit of targeting legislators based on committee assignments and of personalising the subject line with legislator information. This work further operationalises practical indicators of personal relevance and demonstrates a novel method of how to test science communication strategies among policymakers. Building enduring capacity for testing science communication will improve tactics to cut through the noise during times of political crisis.

SciComm Optimizer for Policy Engagement: a randomized controlled trial of the SCOPE model on state legislators' research use in public discourse.

BACKGROUND: While prior work has revealed conditions that foster policymakers' use of research evidence, few studies have rigorously investigated the effectiveness of theory-based practices. Specifically, policymakers are most apt to use research evidence when it is timely, relevant, brief, and messaged appropriately, as well as when it facilitates interactive engagement. This study sought to experimentally evaluate an enhanced research dissemination intervention, known as the SciComm Optimizer for Policy Engagement (SCOPE), implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic among US state legislators. METHODS: State legislators assigned to health committees and their staff were randomized to receive the SCOPE intervention. This involved providing academic researchers with a pathway for translating and disseminating research relevant to current legislative priorities via fact sheets emailed directly to officials. The intervention occurred April 2020-March 2021. Research language was measured in state legislators' social media posts. RESULTS: Legislators randomized to receive the intervention, relative to the control group, produced 24% more social media posts containing research language related to COVID-19. Secondary analyses revealed that these findings were driven by two different types of research language. Intervention officials produced 67% more COVID-related social media posts referencing technical language (e.g., statistical methods), as well as 28% more posts that referenced research-based concepts. However, they produced 31% fewer posts that referenced creating or disseminating new knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that strategic, targeted science communication efforts may have the potential to change state legislators' public discourse and use of evidence. Strategic science communication efforts are particularly needed in light of the role government officials have played in communicating about the pandemic to the general public.

Cutting through the noise during crisis by enhancing the relevance of research to policymakers

It is widely recognised that policymakers use research deemed relevant, yet little is understood about ways to enhance perceived relevance of research evidence. Observing policymakers' access of research online provides a pragmatic way to investigate predictors of relevance. Aims and objectives This study investigates a range of relevance indicators including committee assignments, public statements, issue prevalence, or the policymaker's name or district. Methods In a series of four rapid-cycle randomised control trials (RCTs), the present work systematically explores science communication strategies by studying indicators of perceived relevance. State legislators, state staffers, and federal staffers were emailed fact sheets on issues of COVID (Trial 1, N = 3403), exploitation (Trial 2, N = 6846), police violence (Trial 3, N = 3488), and domestic violence (Trial 4, N = 3888). Findings Across these trials, personalising the subject line to the legislator's name or district and targeting recipients based on committee assignment consistently improved engagement. Mentions of subject matter in public statements was inconsistently associated, and state-level prevalence of the issue was largely not associated with email engagement behaviour. Discussion and conclusions Together, these results indicate a benefit of targeting legislators based on committee assignments and of personalising the subject line with legislator information. This work further operationalises practical indicators of personal relevance and demonstrates a novel method of how to test science communication strategies among policymakers. Building enduring capacity for testing science communication will improve tactics to cut through the noise during times of political crisis.

Numerical simulation of the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on tropospheric composition and aerosol radiative forcing in Europe

Aerosols influence the Earth's energy balance directly by modifying the radiation transfer and indirectly by altering the cloud microphysics. Anthropogenic aerosol emissions dropped considerably when the global COVID-19 pandemic resulted in severe restraints on mobility, production, and public life in spring 2020. We assess the effects of these reduced emissions on direct and indirect aerosol radiative forcing over Europe, excluding contributions from contrails. We simulate the atmospheric composition with the ECHAM5/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry (EMAC) model in a baseline (business-as-usual) and a reduced emission scenario. The model results are compared to aircraft observations from the BLUESKY aircraft campaign performed in May-June 2020 over Europe. The model agrees well with most of the observations, except for sulfur dioxide, particulate sulfate, and nitrate in the upper troposphere, likely due to a biased representation of stratospheric aerosol chemistry and missing information about volcanic eruptions. The comparison with a baseline scenario shows that the largest relative differences for tracers and aerosols are found in the upper troposphere, around the aircraft cruise altitude, due to the reduced aircraft emissions, while the largest absolute changes are present at the surface. We also find an increase in all-sky shortwave radiation of 0.21 +/- 0.05 Wm(-2) at the surface in Europe for May 2020, solely attributable to the direct aerosol effect, which is dominated by decreased aerosol scattering of sunlight, followed by reduced aerosol absorption caused by lower concentrations of inorganic and black carbon aerosols in the troposphere. A further increase in shortwave radiation from aerosol indirect effects was found to be much smaller than its variability. Impacts on ice crystal concentrations, cloud droplet number concentrations, and effective crystal radii are found to be negligible.

USE OF TELEMEDICINE IN GENERAL PRACTICE IN EUROPE SINCE THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: A SCOPING REVIEW OF PATIENT AND PRACTITIONER PERSPECTIVES

General practice is generally the first point of contact for patients presenting with COVID-19. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic general practitioners across Europe have had to adopt to using telemedicine consultations in order to minimise the number of social contacts made.(1). The aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the literature examining the use of telemedicine for delivering routine GP care since the start of the pandemic from the perspectives of patients and practitioners. We used the six-stage scoping review framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley (2). The search process was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A total of 19 studies across nine countries were included in the review. Thirteen studies explored the practitioner perspective of the use of telemedicine in general practice since the COVID-19 pandemic, while six studies looked at the patient perspective. The types of studies included in this review were: qualitative studies, literature reviews, a systematic review, observational studies, quantitative studies, Critical incident technique study, and surveys employing both closed and open styled questions. Key themes identified related to the patient/ practitioner experience and knowledge of using telemedicine, patient/ practitioner levels of satisfaction, GP collaboration, nature of workload, and suitability of consultations for telemedicine. Our findings suggest a level of acceptability and satisfaction of telemedicine by GPs and patients during the pandemic;however, further research is warranted in this area.

Rapid-Cycle Experimentation With State and Federal Policymakers for Optimizing the Reach of Racial Equity Research.

Racial disparities and racism are pervasive public health threats that have been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, it is critical and timely for researchers to communicate with policymakers about strategies for reducing disparities. From April through July 2020, across four rapid-cycle trials disseminating scientific products with evidence-based policy recommendations for addressing disparities, we tested strategies for optimizing the reach of scientific messages to policymakers. By getting such research into the hands of policymakers who can act on it, this work can help combat racial health disparities.(Am J Public Health. 2021;111(10):1768-1771. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306404).

General practice attendances among patients attending a post-COVID-19 hospital clinic: A pilot study

Background: About 10-35% of people with COVID-19 merit medical care within 3 weeks of infection. However, the prevalence of ongoing care needs among individuals experiencing severe COVID-19 illness is unclear. Research question: What is the prevalence of ongoing care needs among severe COVID-19 patients? Methods: This pilot study applied a cross-sectional design whereby data was collected from adult patients attending a post-COVID-19 follow-up clinic at the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland, 3-6 months after their initial presentation at the clinic. Participants completed questionnaires documenting their demographics, medical histories, hospital admissions/re-admissions where applicable, and where relevant, primary care service use following hospital discharge. Analyses were conducted using descriptive/inferential statistics. Results: Participants' (n=153) median age =43.5 (IQR =30.9-52.1). There were 105 females (68.6%) and 48 males (31.4%). Various medical histories were reported among participants. 67 (43.2%) reported being admitted to the hospital for COVID-19. Older individuals, males, ICU admissions, and re-admissions were common among hospital attendees. Of the hospital attendees, 16 (24%, 95% CI =13.7-34.2%) and 26 (39%, 95% CI =27.3-50.7%) attended general practices within seven and 30 days of hospital discharge. Older adults (median age =49.8 years), people with pre-existing medical conditions, and individuals admitted to ICU/readmitted to hospital were common among general practice attendees. Conclusion: Persistent health issues appear to be common among patients who experienced severe COVID-19 illness. Older adults, people with pre-existing health problems, and individuals who received ICU and/or re-admission care may have greater long-term care needs requiring attention.

Caring for opioid drug users during the covid-19 pandemic – a commentary on the irish experience

The management of COVID-19 disease is threatening health systems globally. People who use drugs, in particular opioid users, have increased vulnerability. Targeted adaptations of opioid agonist treatment (OAT) are required to protect this vulnerable population and the healthcare workers providing services. In this article we describe and discuss the associated evidence for the measures implemented to reduce the risks associated with COVID-19 to Irish OAT services. Irish OAT services have implemented the following measures: reduced supervision requirements, increased the use of virtual patient care, streamlined assessment and induction processes to remove barriers to OAT access, provided home delivery of medi-cations, increased access to naloxone and overdose programmes, targeted health and social interventions for the homeless and reduced our prison population. For now, non-essential services including drug and blood-borne virus screening and hepatitis C treatment have been postponed. Planning and review of Irish OAT services is ongoing so that further adaptations can be implemented as challenges emerge. Rapid adaptation of OAT services is required to reduce the impact of COVID-19 on patients, staff and the general public. Ongoing evaluation of these measures is critical since many of these changes may have an enormous impact on health and social care outcomes and be cost saving in a post-COVID future. Furthermore, these positive changes may address some of the social and health inequalities experienced by so many.

(don't) call me “dr.”: The role of credibility in communicating substance use research to federal and state policymakers

Purpose: The stress, anxiety, depression, and isolation caused by COVID-19 have resulted in marked increases in the use of alcohol and other substances. For example, between February and April 2020, the number of drinks consumed per day increased by 29%. Further, individuals with substance use disorders (SUDs) who are in recovery face unique challenges during COVID-19, such as cancellations of in-person support group meetings. Communicating these issues and evidence-based solutions to policymakers who can act on it is therefore critical. However, research on optimizing science communication efforts to policymakers is limited. In the present study, we aim to test strategies for improving the reach of research on substance use (SU) and SUDs to policymakers. Methods: Rapid-cycle randomized controlled trials disseminating fact sheets via email to state and federal policymakers were conducted. All fact sheets contained research on SU or supporting individuals with SUDs. Participants were randomized into equal groups to receive different email subject lines and sender names. Indicators of credibility were manipulated (i.e., use of “Dr.” or “PhD” in the sender line compared to no title;use of jargon vs. none). Negative binomial regressions were conducted to test whether the experimental manipulations resulted in more email opens on a researchers' messages and clicks on their fact sheet clicks compared to a control email. Results: Results showed that the use of “PhD” in the sender line resulted in more email opens and clicks on the fact sheet than “Dr.” However, there was an interaction effect such that the use of “Dr.” in the sender line resulted in more opens when paired with the use of jargon. Conclusions: These results broadly suggest that the effects of credibility are more nuanced than one might expect. When communicating SU/SUD research to policymakers via email, the use of “PhD” in the sender line seems to be more effective at increasing opens and clicks than “Dr.”, unless jargon is used, which points to possible effects of policymaker norms and expectations. Ultimately, this work helps to inform strategies for increasing the reach of SU/SUD research messages, which is critical for improving the use of scientific research in policy processes intended to prevent or address SU/SUDs.