Washington State Institute for Public Policy

About: Washington State Institute for Public Policy is a government organization based out in Olympia, Washington, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Public policy & Population. The organization has 18 authors who have published 29 publications receiving 4687 citations. The organization is also known as: WSIPP.

Using logic models to capture complexity in systematic reviews

Abstract: Logic models have long been used to understand complex programs to improve social and health outcomes. They illustrate how a program is designed to achieve its intended outcomes. They also can be used to describe connections between determinants of outcomes, for example, low high-school graduation rates or spiraling obesity rates, thus aiding the development of interventions that target causal factors. However, these models have not often been used in systematic reviews. This paper argues that logic models can be valuable in the systematic review process. First, they can aid in the conceptualization of the review focus and illustrate hypothesized causal links, identify effect mediators or moderators, specify intermediate outcomes and potential harms, and justify a priori subgroup analyses when differential effects are anticipated. Second, logic models can be used to direct the review process more specifically. They can help justify narrowing the scope of a review, identify the most relevant inclusion criteria, guide the literature search, and clarify interpretation of results when drawing policy-relevant conclusions about review findings. We present examples that explain how logic models have been used and how they can be applied at different stages in a systematic review. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Crime and Criminal Justice Costs: Implications in Washington State

Abstract: In 2006, long-term forecasts indicated that Washington faced the need to construct several new prisons in the following two decades. Since new prisons are costly, the Washington legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to project whether there are "evidence-based" options that can reduce the future need for prison beds, save money for state and local taxpayers, and contribute to lower crime rates. The institute conducted a systematic review of all research evidence that could be located to determine what works, if anything, to reduce crime. We found and analyzed 545 comparison-group evaluations of adult corrections, juvenile corrections, and prevention programs. We then estimated the benefits and costs of many of these evidence-based options and found that some evidence-based programs produce favorable returns on investment. This paper presents our findings and describes our meta-analytic and economic methods.

Community coalition‐driven interventions to reduce health disparities among racial and ethnic minority populations

Abstract: Background Racial and ethnic disparities in health status are pervasive at all stages of the life cycle. One approach to reducing health disparities involves mobilizing community coalitions that include representatives of target populations to plan and implement interventions for community level change. A systematic examination of coalition-led interventions is needed to inform decision making about the use of community coalition models. Objectives To assess effects of community coalition-driven interventions in improving health status or reducing health disparities among racial and ethnic minority populations. Search methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, Social Science Citation Index, Dissertation Abstracts, System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) (from January 1990 through September 30, 2013), and Global Health Library (from January 1990 through March 31, 2014). Selection criteria Cluster-randomized controlled trials, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies, and prospective controlled cohort studies. Only studies of community coalitions with at least one racial or ethnic minority group representing the target population and at least two community public or private organizations are included. Major outcomes of interest are direct measures of health status, as well as lifestyle factors when evidence indicates that these have an effect on the direct measures performed. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each study. Main results Fifty-eight community coalition-driven intervention studies were included. No study was considered to be at low risk of bias. Behavioral change outcomes and health status change outcomes were analyzed separately. Outcomes are grouped by intervention type. Pooled effects across intervention types are not presented because the diverse community coalition-led intervention studies did not examine the same constructs or relationships, and they used dissimilar methodological designs. Broad-scale community system level change strategies led to little or no difference in measures of health behavior or health status (very low-certainty evidence). Broad health and social care system level strategies leds to small beneficial changes in measures of health behavior or health status in large samples of community residents (very low-certainty evidence). Lay community health outreach worker interventions led to beneficial changes in health behavior measures of moderate magnitude in large samples of community residents (very low-certainty evidence). Lay community health outreach worker interventions may lead to beneficial changes in health status measures in large samples of community residents; however, results were not consistent across studies (low-certainty evidence). Group-based health education led by professional staff resulted in moderate improvement in measures of health behavior (very low-certainty evidence) or health status (low-certainty evidence). Adverse outcomes of community coalition-led interventions were not reported. Authors' conclusions Coalition-led interventions are characterized by connection of multi-sectoral networks of health and human service providers with ethnic and racial minority communities. These interventions benefit a diverse range of individual health outcomes and behaviors, as well as health and social care delivery systems. Evidence in this review shows that interventions led by community coalitions may connect health and human service providers with ethnic and racial minority communities in ways that benefit individual health outcomes and behaviors, as well as care delivery systems. However, because information on characteristics of the coalitions themselves is insufficient, evidence does not provide an explanation for the underlying mechanisms of beneficial effects. Thus, a definitive answer as to whether a coalition-led intervention adds extra value to the types of community engagement intervention strategies described in this review remains unattainable.