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.

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.

COVID-19 Information Sources for Black and Latine Communities: A Community Co-created Survey.

BACKGROUND: To ensure equity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine access, it is critical that Black and Latine communities receive trustworthy COVID-19 information. This study uses community-based participatory research to understand sources of COVID-19 information for Black and Latine adults, how trustworthy that information is, and relationships between information sources and COVID-19 vaccine intention. METHODS: We co-created a survey in Spanish and English and distributed it to Black and Latine adults residing in the Pittsburgh area. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 574 participants who completed the survey. Participants reported accessing a variety of COVID-19 information sources and generally trusted these sources. Few sources of information were associated with COVID-19 vaccine intention. We also review lessons learned from our community-academic collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Trustworthy COVID-19 information sources may not be sufficient for increasing vaccine intention. Results can help other community-academic partnerships working to improve COVID-19 vaccine equity.

A Community Partnered Approach to Promoting COVID-19 Vaccine Equity.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disproportionately affected communities of color. To dismantle these disparities, it is critical to promote COVID-19 vaccine equity, both through increasing vaccine access and addressing vaccine mistrust. This article describes a community-academic collaboration (the Community Vaccine Collaborative [CVC]), whose mission is to ensure COVID-19 vaccine equity among marginalized communities. Based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, our group has focused on inclusion of marginalized groups into vaccine clinical trials, addressing vaccine mistrust, and building systems to ensuring equitable access to the COVID-19 vaccine. We review formation of the CVC, activities to-date, and recommendations for other communities interested in developing similar collaboratives.