Introduction
Professionals voicing their opinion to raise awareness of local legislators about healthcare issues may bring substantial improvement in health outcomes. For example, there is a good healthcare policy initiative that consists of the promotion of immunization among students in public education institutions. This policy priority issue could be presented to Frederica S. Wilson, a representative of the 24th congressional district in Miami-Dade County. However, not every nurse knows how to properly communicate their ideas to a legislator to achieve results (Ellen et al., 2014). Thus, there is a need to review communication barriers and strategies before planning an effective policymaking visit.
Communication Barriers in Approaching Legislators 1
There is extensive evidence on hardships that initiative advocates face when trying to communicate with decision-makers in the sphere of healthcare. Engagement with policymakers can be challenging due to the lack of training, possible lack of desire to make a difference, refusal to acknowledge the evidence and recognize the credibility of research (Otten, Dodson, Fleischhacker, Siddiqi, & Quinn, 2015). In addition, researchers note that the lack of time can also be a substantial hindrance to making changes to the existing policy proposed by professionals (Gollust et al., 2017).
Lack of training can be a serious barrier on the way to implementing an intervention regardless of how logical, timely or beneficial it is. The inability to communicate their ideas to a legislator, according to Otten et al. (2015) is one of the major reasons for refusal to promote or implement the project that researchers or professionals propose. The reason for this is that those groups of people simply do not use the necessary sources of evidence-based knowledge to properly engage in communication with legislators. Their institution did not provide any informational support on how to bring their projects to discussion with policymakers.
Lack of experience is also a factor that can influence the success of the proposed initiative. Some professionals note that they “learned by doing it” (Otten et al., 2015). Personal factors such as an absence of the desire to make a change can doubtfully be overcome with methods other than proper motivation induced by the power of the communicator’s message. The survey conducted among legislators showed that they have enormous amounts of work, which needs to be rescheduled in order to undertake an initiative. Often, there is no such possibility unless the proposal is really urgent, well-developed, and based on credible evidence (Gollust et al., 2017; Uzochukwu et al., 2016). Those barriers need to be considered when developing a proposal and planning a policy visit.
Communication Barriers in Approaching Legislators 2
Based on the identified barriers, researchers proposed a number of strategies to improve the effectiveness of communication between local policymakers and initiative proposers. Communication strategies Otten et al. (2015) formulate are based on the evidence gathered from professional healthcare providers who engaged in policy proposal activities. One of them is to cooperate with colleagues, who can provide assistance in finding proof, and, most importantly, their names in the research could indicate that this problem is backed by other professionals in the sphere (Otten et al., 2015). Mentioning the names of those who helped you conduct the research and those who supported your decisions before you approached the legislator could provide additional proof of urgency and the degree of support from the professional community. This could help build trust between the policymaker and the proposer.
This goal is also achieved through the attraction of the institution’s attention to the problem (Gollust et al., 2017). When planning a healthcare policy visit, it is can also be important to obtain formal approval from the university, hospital or another place of work or study. In the process of engagement, the legislator needs to see that the initiative is quite important to as many parties as possible to have a sufficient basis for putting aside their everyday choirs and allocate resources and time to solving the proposed problem. Frequent communication and follow-up inquiry at the local legislator’s office also seems to be a way forward when advocating for a policy change (Programme MED, 2013). Asking about the status of the proposal is one of the ways to keep a policymaker aware of your commitment.
There is also a need to be mindful that a consensus in many situations seems like a good decision as lobbying takes many resources and is not always successful. Opting for a minor improvement in particular circumstances is not a complete failure but an optimization opportunity to search for other approaches. The mentioned scholarly sources studying responses of healthcare professionals seem to focus more on identifying the successful practices they used but omit the achievements of the people they surveyed. In the press, there seems to be also an emphasis on the meaning and impact of the policy change, and little emphasis is made on the individual behind it. Therefore, there is little hard evidence on the successful use of the identified communication practices and approaches.
Conclusion
All things considered, there is a number of barriers and techniques that one needs to be aware of when approaching decision-makers. Among the barriers is the lack of experience and training in researches, and lack of interest and time in legislators. Among communication strategies, researchers propose collaboration with colleagues and organizations to build trust and develop evidence, frequent inquiries and accept compromise decisions in situations where it seems appropriate.
References
Ellen, M. E., Léon, G., Bouchard, G., Ouimet, M., Grimshaw, J. M., & Lavis, J. N. (2014). Barriers, facilitators and views about next steps to implementing supports for evidence-informed decision-making in health systems: A qualitative study. Implementation Science: IS, 9, 179. Web.
Gollust, S. E., Seymour, J. W., Pany, M. J., Goss, A., Meisel, Z. F., & Grande, D. (2017). Mutual distrust: Perspectives from researchers and policymakers on the research to policy gap in 2013 and recommendations for the future. Inquiry: A Journal of Medical Care Organization, Provision and Financing, 54.
Otten, J. J., Dodson, E. A., Fleischhacker, S., Siddiqi, S., & Quinn, E. L. (2015). Getting research to the policy table: A qualitative study with public health researchers on engaging with policymakers. Preventing Chronic Disease, 12, E56.
Programme MED. (2013). Target audiences: Communicating projects to policymakers. Web.
Uzochukwu, B., Onwujekwe, O., Mbachu, C., Okwuosa, C., Etiaba, E., Nyström, M. E., & Gilson, L. (2016). The challenge of bridging the gap between researchers and policymakers: Experiences of a Health Policy Research Group in engaging policymakers to support evidence-informed policy making in Nigeria. Globalization and Health, 12(1), 67.