Suchergebnisse

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Psychiatric genetics has had limited success in translational efforts. A thorough understanding of the present state of translation in this field will be useful in the facilitation and assessment of future translational progress. <b><i>Purpose:</i></b> A narrative literature review was conducted. Combinations of 3 groups of terms were searched in EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, and PubMed. The review occurred in multiple steps, including abstract collection, inclusion/exclusion criteria review, coding, and analysis of included papers. <b><i>Results:</i></b> One hundred and fourteen articles were analyzed for the narrative review. Across those, 4 bottlenecks were noted that, if addressed, may provide insights and help improve and increase translation in the field of psychiatric genetics. These 4 bottlenecks are emphasizing linear translational frameworks, relying on molecular genomic findings, prioritizing certain psychiatric disorders, and publishing more reviews than experiments. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> These entwined bottlenecks are examined with one another. Awareness of these bottlenecks can inform stakeholders who work to translate and/or utilize psychiatric genetic information. Potential solutions include utilizing nonlinear translational frameworks as well as a wider array of psychiatric genetic information (e.g., family history and gene-environment interplay) in this area of research, expanding which psychiatric disorders are considered for translation, and when possible, conducting original research. Researchers are urged to consider how their research is translational in the context of the frameworks, genetic information, and psychiatric disorders discussed in this review. At a broader level, these efforts should be supported with translational efforts in funding and policy shifts.

AbstractThe evolving science around COVID‐19 made timely digital communication with policymakers increasingly important for all constituencies. This holds true particularly for the scientific community, where evidence‐informed policymaking can influence the effectiveness of public responses. In this context, understanding how to reach policymakers effectively and which policymakers are likely to engage with scientific information delivered through digital mediums is critical. This study provides a novel observational approach to understanding reach with policymakers through science email campaigns. Using a sample of nearly 3000 state policymakers, we assessed data from five digital messaging campaigns. Results indicate four profiles of legislators: those who rarely open and open slowly (Never Openers), those who only opened a couple of emails (Rare Openers), those who open quickly, but do not always open (Intermittent Openers), and those that consistently open quickly (Always Openers). Female legislators and legislators who had served for fewer terms were more likely to be Always Openers or Intermittent Openers, relative to male legislators and legislators who had served more terms. This study reveals patterns of email engagement and indicates science communication efforts may need to adopt more targeted strategies that better reach policymakers who tend to engage less frequently with emailed research content.

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.

Excessive internet use has been linked to psychopathology. Therefore, understanding the genetic and environmental risks underpinning internet use and their relation to psychopathology is important. This study aims to explore the genetic and environmental etiology of internet use measures and their associations with internalizing disorders and substance use disorders. The sample included 2,059 monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) young adult twins from the Brisbane Longitudinal Twin Study (BLTS). Younger participants reported more frequent internet use, while women were more likely to use the internet for interpersonal communication. Familial aggregation in 'frequency of internet use' was entirely explained by additive genetic factors accounting for 41% of the variance. Familial aggregation in 'frequency of use after 11 pm', 'using the internet to contact peers', and 'using the internet primarily to access social networking sites' was attributable to varying combinations of additive genetic and shared environmental factors. In terms of psychopathology, there were no significant associations between internet use measures and major depression (MD), but there were positive significant associations between 'frequency of internet use' and 'frequency of use after 11 pm' with social phobia (SP). 'Using the internet to contact peers' was positively associated with alcohol abuse, whereas 'using the internet to contact peers' and 'using the internet primarily to access social networking sites' were negatively associated with cannabis use disorders and nicotine symptoms. Individual differences in internet use can be attributable to varying degrees of genetic and environmental risks. Despite some significant associations of small effect, variation in internet use appears mostly unrelated to psychopathology.

Background: There is growing interest in and recognition of the need to use scientific evidence to inform policymaking. However, many of the existing studies on the use of research evidence (URE) have been largely qualitative, and the majority of existing quantitative measures are underdeveloped or were tested in regional or context-dependent settings. We are unaware of any quantitative measures of URE with national policymakers in the US.
Aims and objectives: Explore how to measure URE quantitatively by validating a measure of congressional staff's attitudes and behaviors regarding URE, the Legislative Use of Research Survey (LURS), and by discussing the lessons learned through administering the survey.
Methods: A 68-item survey was administered to 80 congressional staff to measure their reported research use, value of research, interactions with researchers, general information sources, and research information sources. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted on each of these five scales. We then trimmed the number of items, based on a combination of poor factor loadings and theoretical rationale, and ran the analyses on the trimmed subscales.
Findings: We substantially improved our model fits for each scale over the original models and all items had acceptable factor loadings with our trimmed 35-item survey. We also describe the unique set of challenges and lessons learned from surveying congressional staff.
Discussion and conclusions: This work contributes to the transdisciplinary field of URE by offering a tool for studying the mechanisms that can bridge research and policy and shedding light into best practices for measuring URE with national policymakers in the US.

Core to the goal of scientific exploration is the opportunity to guide future decision-making. Yet, elected officials often miss opportunities to use science in their policymaking. This work reports on an experiment with the US Congress-evaluating the effects of a randomized, dual-population (i.e., researchers and congressional offices) outreach model for supporting legislative use of research evidence regarding child and family policy issues. In this experiment, we found that congressional offices randomized to the intervention reported greater value of research for understanding issues than the control group following implementation. More research use was also observed in legislation introduced by the intervention group. Further, we found that researchers randomized to the intervention advanced their own policy knowledge and engagement as well as reported benefits for their research following implementation.

Core to the goal of scientific exploration is the opportunity to guide future decision-making. Yet, elected officials often miss opportunities to use science in their policymaking. This work reports on an experiment with the US Congress—evaluating the effects of a randomized, dual-population (i.e., researchers and congressional offices) outreach model for supporting legislative use of research evidence regarding child and family policy issues. In this experiment, we found that congressional offices randomized to the intervention reported greater value of research for understanding issues than the control group following implementation. More research use was also observed in legislation introduced by the intervention group. Further, we found that researchers randomized to the intervention advanced their own policy knowledge and engagement as well as reported benefits for their research following implementation.