Research-to-Policy Collaboration for Addiction Prevention
Recruiting in Palo Alto (17 mi)
Age: Any Age
Sex: Any
Travel: May Be Covered
Time Reimbursement: Varies
Trial Phase: Academic
Recruiting
Sponsor: Penn State University
Disqualifiers: Not a state-level public official
No Placebo Group
Trial Summary
What is the purpose of this trial?If science is to inform effective substance misuse prevention policy and ultimately improve public health, the field needs an effective strategy for directly supporting policymakers' use of research evidence, yet our field lacks an evidence-based model designed for this purpose. Accordingly, a state-level randomized controlled trial (N = 30 states) of a formal, theory-based approach for appropriately supporting policymakers' use of scientific evidence--known as the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) Model is proposed. This work has the potential to reduce population-level substance misuse by improving the use of scientific information in policymaking, thus increasing the availability of evidence-based prevention programs and policies.
Will I have to stop taking my current medications?
The trial does not specify whether participants need to stop taking their current medications.
What data supports the effectiveness of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) Model treatment for addiction prevention?
The effectiveness of the RPC Model treatment for addiction prevention is indirectly supported by research on translating addiction studies into practice, which highlights the importance of evidence-based decision support in routine treatment. Additionally, the HEAL Prevention Cooperative's work on implementing effective prevention interventions for opioid misuse suggests that similar collaborative approaches can facilitate the integration of effective prevention strategies into practice.
12345How is the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) Model treatment different from other treatments for addiction prevention?
The Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) Model is unique because it focuses on translating scientific research into policy by connecting researchers with policymakers to create evidence-based prevention strategies, rather than directly treating addiction itself. This approach aims to influence public policy to prevent addiction on a broader scale, which is different from traditional treatments that focus on individual patients.
26789Eligibility Criteria
This trial is for state-level policymakers involved in substance misuse prevention policy. It aims to improve the use of scientific evidence in policymaking, potentially increasing the availability of evidence-based programs and policies.Inclusion Criteria
State-level public officials
Exclusion Criteria
Anyone who is not a state-level public official
Trial Timeline
Screening
Participants are screened for eligibility to participate in the trial
2-4 weeks
Intervention
Implementation of the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) Model to support policymakers' use of scientific evidence
6 months
Ongoing engagement with policymakers
Follow-up
Participants are monitored for changes in engagement and use of research evidence in policymaking
6 months
Participant Groups
The study tests a formal approach called the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC) Model against a control group, using a randomized controlled trial with 30 states to see if it effectively supports policymakers' use of research evidence.
2Treatment groups
Experimental Treatment
Active Control
Group I: Intervention GroupExperimental Treatment1 Intervention
Legislative offices who receive the full Research-to-Policy Model intervention.
Group II: Control GroupActive Control1 Intervention
Legislative Offices who do not receive the full RPC Model intervention.
Find a Clinic Near You
Research Locations NearbySelect from list below to view details:
Penn State UniversityUniversity Park, PA
Loading ...
Who Is Running the Clinical Trial?
Penn State UniversityLead Sponsor
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)Collaborator
References
Translating addictions research into evidence-based practice: the Polaris CD outcomes management system. [2021]Converting the findings from addictions studies into information actionable by (non-research) treatment programs is important to improving program outcomes. This paper describes the translation of the findings of studies on Patient-Services matching, prediction of patient response to treatment (Expected Treatment Response) and prediction of dropout to provide evidence-based decision support in routine treatment. The findings of the studies and their application to the development of an outcomes management system are described. Implementation issues in a network of addictions treatment programs are discussed. The work illustrates how outcomes management systems can play an important role in translating research into practice.
Advancing prevention science and practice: challenges, critical issues, and future directions. [2019]Progress in identifying effective programs and policies for preventing tobacco, alcohol, and illicit drug use has stimulated a growing sense of optimism about the potential of prevention science and practice. This paper summarizes some of the key challenges and critical issues that still need to be addressed for the advances of the past two decades of prevention research to have an impact on the nature of prevention practice and eventually translate into reductions in mortality and morbidity. In addition to identifying effective strategies for disseminating the use of evidence-based prevention programs and policies, issues related to implementation fidelity and adaptation need to be better understood as well as factors associated with institutionalization of effective prevention programs. Further advances in prevention science and practice will require a new emphasis on blended research models that involve conducting prevention research in practice settings with the active collaboration of researchers and practitioners.
Translating research findings into practice: example of treatment services for adolescents in managed care. [2020]An important question in the alcoholism treatment field is how research findings can be translated into real-world clinical practice. Researchers have developed a new research-practice integration (RPI) model that can both drive the formulation of studies and new research questions and promote improvements in treatment quality. The hallmark of this model is a collaborative relationship between the key stakeholders in both alcohol and other drug (AOD) treatment and research, including health plan administrators and clinicians, treatment program administrators, psychiatry and primary care departments, patients and their families, purchasers, and researchers. The issue of technology transfer is especially relevant in the realm of adolescent AOD treatment. The implementation and feasibility of the RPI model are illustrated by a case study of a managed health care plan's treatment services for adolescents with AOD dependence. In this setting, key research findings are being used to shape the plan's adolescent health services.
Standards of evidence: criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. [2019]Ever increasing demands for accountability, together with the proliferation of lists of evidence-based prevention programs and policies, led the Society for Prevention Research to charge a committee with establishing standards for identifying effective prevention programs and policies. Recognizing that interventions that are effective and ready for dissemination are a subset of effective programs and policies, and that effective programs and policies are a subset of efficacious interventions, SPR's Standards Committee developed overlapping sets of standards. We designed these Standards to assist practitioners, policy makers, and administrators to determine which interventions are efficacious, which are effective, and which are ready for dissemination. Under these Standards, an efficacious intervention will have been tested in at least two rigorous trials that (1) involved defined samples from defined populations, (2) used psychometrically sound measures and data collection procedures; (3) analyzed their data with rigorous statistical approaches; (4) showed consistent positive effects (without serious iatrogenic effects); and (5) reported at least one significant long-term follow-up. An effective intervention under these Standards will not only meet all standards for efficacious interventions, but also will have (1) manuals, appropriate training, and technical support available to allow third parties to adopt and implement the intervention; (2) been evaluated under real-world conditions in studies that included sound measurement of the level of implementation and engagement of the target audience (in both the intervention and control conditions); (3) indicated the practical importance of intervention outcome effects; and (4) clearly demonstrated to whom intervention findings can be generalized. An intervention recognized as ready for broad dissemination under these Standards will not only meet all standards for efficacious and effective interventions, but will also provide (1) evidence of the ability to "go to scale"; (2) clear cost information; and (3) monitoring and evaluation tools so that adopting agencies can monitor or evaluate how well the intervention works in their settings. Finally, the Standards Committee identified possible standards desirable for current and future areas of prevention science as the field develops. If successful, these Standards will inform efforts in the field to find prevention programs and policies that are of proven efficacy, effectiveness, or readiness for adoption and will guide prevention scientists as they seek to discover, research, and bring to the field new prevention programs and policies.
Accelerating Solutions for the Overdose Crisis: an Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Protocol for the HEAL Prevention Cooperative. [2023]Given increasing opioid overdose mortality rates in the USA over the past 20 years, accelerating the implementation of prevention interventions found to be effective is critical. The Helping End Addiction Long-Term (HEAL) Prevention Cooperative (HPC) is a consortium of research projects funded to implement and test interventions designed to prevent the onset or escalation of opioid misuse among youth and young adults. The HPC offers a unique opportunity to synthesize and share lessons learned from participating research projects' varied implementation experiences, which can facilitate quicker integration of effective prevention interventions into practice. This protocol paper describes our hybrid approach to collecting and analyzing information about the implementation experiences of nine of the HPC research projects while they maintain their focus on assessing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of prevention interventions. To better understand implementation within this context, we will address five research questions: (1) What were the context and approach for implementing the prevention interventions, and how was the overall implementation experience? (2) How representative of the target population are the participants who were enrolled and retained in the research projects' effectiveness trials? (3) For what purposes and how were stakeholders engaged by the research projects? (4) What are the adaptable components of the prevention interventions? And finally, (5) how might implementation of the prevention interventions vary for non-trial implementation? This work will result in intervention-specific and general practical dissemination resources that can help potential adopters and deliverers of opioid misuse prevention make adoption decisions and prepare for successful implementation.
Translating Prevention Research for Evidence-Based Policymaking: Results from the Research-to-Policy Collaboration Pilot. [2021]The importance of basing public policy on sound scientific evidence is increasingly being recognized, yet many barriers continue to slow the translation of prevention research into legislative action. This work reports on the feasibility of a model for overcoming these barriers-known as the Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC). The RPC employs strategic legislative needs assessments and a rapid response researcher network to accelerate the translation of research findings into usable knowledge for policymakers. Evaluation findings revealed that this model can successfully mobilize prevention scientists, engage legislative offices, connect policymakers and experts in prevention, and elicit congressional requests for evidence on effective prevention strategies. On average, the RPC model costs $3510 to implement per legislative office. The RPC can elicit requests for evidence at an average cost of $444 per request. The implications of this work, opportunities for optimizing project elements, and plans for future work are discussed. Ultimately, this project signals that the use of scientific knowledge of prevention in policymaking can be greatly augmented through strategic investment in translational efforts.
A state agency-university partnership for translational research and the dissemination of evidence-based prevention and intervention. [2022]This article describes a decade-long partnership between the Prevention Research Center at Penn State and the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency. This partnership has evolved into a multi-agency initiative supporting the implementation of nearly 200 replications of evidence-based prevention and intervention programs, and a series of studies indicating a significant and sustained impact on youth outcomes and more efficient utilization of system resources. We describe how the collaboration has developed into a sophisticated prevention support infrastructure, discuss the partnership and policy lessons learned throughout this journey, and identify remaining issues in promoting this type of research-policy partnership.
Researchers' views about priorities for research on alcohol, tobacco and other drugs. [2005]There have been few attempts to study systematically researchers' views about priorities for addiction research. This mail/telephone survey of 101 Australian researchers achieved a 90% response rate. Respondents believed there should be a 50/50 split between the agency-directed and researcher-initiated methods of funding allocation. The top four drugs in terms of desired proportions of research spending were alcohol 32%, tobacco 18%, opiates 9% and prescribed drugs 9%. Researchers' preferences for high funding allocations on prevention research were at odds with the low level of Australian studies in this area. Complexities of design and methodology were nominated as the most important barriers to prevention research. The divide between qualitative and quantitative approaches was not identified as a major barrier to personal or prevention research. In addition to increases in both overall and specific funding, greater collaboration and political support were viewed as important facilitating factors for research efforts. Improved researcher training and the need to integrate research into quality assurance programmes were also nominated as useful means of encouraging prevention studies.
The contribution of research to Australian policy responses to heroin dependence 1990-2001: a personal retrospection. [2007]Periodic public concern about heroin use has been a major driver of Australian drug policy in the four decades since heroin use was first reported. The number of heroin-dependent people in Australia has increased from several hundreds in the late 1960s to around 100,000 by the end of the 1990s. In this paper I do the following: (1) describe collaborative research on heroin dependence that was undertaken between 1991 and 2001 by researchers at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre; (2) discuss the contribution that this research may have made to the formulation of policies towards the treatment of heroin dependence during a period when the policy debate crystallized around the issue of whether or not Australia should conduct a controlled trial of heroin prescription; and (3) reflect on the relationships between research and policy-making in the addictions field, specifically on the roles of investigator-initiated and commissioned research, the interface between researchers, funders and policy-makers; and the need to be realistic about the likely impact of research on policy and practice.