摘要：Objectives. We describe how scientific evidence about obesity has been used in Minnesota legislative materials to understand how research evidence might more effectively be translated into policymaking. Methods. We selected 13 obesity-related bills introduced from 2007 to 2011 in Minnesota. Using state archives, we collected all legislative committee meeting materials and floor testimony related to each bill. We used a coding instrument to systematically analyze the content of a sample of 109 materials for their use of research evidence and non–research-based information. Results. Research evidence was mentioned in 41% of all legislative materials. Evidence was often used to describe the prevalence or consequences of obesity or policy impacts but not to describe health disparities. In 45% of materials that cited evidence, no source of evidence was indicated. By contrast, 92% of materials presented non–research-based information, such as expert beliefs, constituent opinion, political principles, and anecdotes. Conclusions. Despite an abundance of available research evidence on obesity, less than half of legislative materials cited any such evidence in discussions around obesity-related bills under consideration in Minnesota. Increased recognition of childhood obesity as a public health crisis has spurred numerous legislative and regulatory proposals at the national, state, and local levels. Experts agree on the need for better alignment of the evidence base for obesity prevention with the evidence needs of decision makers. 1,2 Unfortunately, the pace of research translation is slow relative to the scope and urgency of the problem, with 17% of US youths currently clinically obese, 3 although small declines in obesity rates have recently been observed. 3,4 A comprehensive evidence-based policy approach is needed to continue to make a meaningful impact. 5,6 However, researchers have shown that policymaking is infrequently supported by research evidence; instead, lawmakers balance personal experience, constituent concerns, anecdotes, values, and political expediency to make policy decisions. 5,7–9 Although these themes of policymaking are well known, little information is available to quantify how frequently research evidence—in comparison with other types of non–research-based persuasive appeals—is cited in policy-relevant discourse. We designed this study to fill this gap. Many researchers have observed that researchers and policymakers live in different universes, 7 posing major challenges to the process of effectively translating research evidence to policymakers. 8 For instance, researchers work on different time horizons and have different incentives than policymakers, leading to research that is ill timed for the legislative cycle and synthesized in language that is appropriate for academic settings rather than being accessible to most policymakers. 7,10 Yet, literature in the growing field of knowledge translation has highlighted recommendations to promote more consistent use of evidence by policymakers. For instance, research on state policymakers’ perceptions of the role of evidence in health policy has offered generic tips about how to better disseminate evidence to have a more meaningful impact on the policy process, such as ensuring that the evidence is locally relevant and timely, identifies specific policy implications, and is presented in easy-to-grasp written formats or, especially, conveyed in person. 7,11–13 Although these generic recommendations have value, other research has suggested that the specific political and economic context of the particular policy domain affects the ways in which evidence is used in that domain, 11,14,15 suggesting that obesity-related policy demands specific scrutiny. In addition, although many previous studies on translating research to policymakers have a national scope, 13,16–18 much policy action on childhood obesity prevention occurs at the state level. 19 Thus, a focused analysis of state-level legislative discussion can help inform understanding of the evidence translation process for obesity policymaking. 18 Developing actionable recommendations for improving the use of evidence in policymaking will require considering the specific context of childhood obesity and attending to variation in the types of policy arenas encompassed (e.g., nutrition policy, physical activity policy) under the broad domain of obesity prevention.
