Timely, concise health research information spawns better policy: web sites, summaries rated most useful

OB/GYN News, Nov 15, 2003 by Mary Ellen Schneider

WASHINGTON -- By spending extra time making health research information useful for policy makers, researchers can increase the likelihood of better policy and more funding, Richard Sorian said at an international conference sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and AcademyHealth.

When it comes to health policy issues, researchers and policy makers often seem far apart on issues. Mr. Sorian, vice president for external relations at the National Committee for Quality Assurance, and his colleagues looked into why this gap exists and how policy makers use information to make decisions.

The researchers conducted 260 telephone interviews of congressional and executive branch staff members working on health issues.

To get information through to policy makers, researchers should keep it short, relevant, on time, and focused, Mr. Sorian said.

Organizations don't need to change the way they conduct research, but they need to incorporate communications and research sharing into the training of new re searchers, he said

Respondents reported that about one third of what they receive is useful They described useful information as being timely, concise, easy to read, and from a credible source. They rated Web sites and news summaries as the most useful, and audio conferences and traditional mail as the least useful.

In a 10-hour day, staff members reported spending about 25% of the time reading or writing e-mail, 10% reading news sources, 13% surfing the Web, and 9% reading reports and studies--the traditional way that researchers deliver information.

"Policy makers are inundated," Mr. Sorian said. "Half of their day is spent processing information."

Congressional and executive branch staff members don't spend a lot of time reading medical journals. About 38% of respondents reported that they read Health Affairs, 13% read the Journal of the American Medical Association, and 9% read the New England Journal of Medicine. But 37% said they don't read any journals.

When asked what sources they trust most when looking for information, they named nonprofit, nonpartisan groups such as the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Respondents said they were less likely to view information as credible if it came from lobbyists and partisan groups.