research findings and dissemination

What you need to know about research dissemination

Last updated

5 March 2024

Reviewed by

In this article, we'll tell you what you need to know about research dissemination.

Understanding research dissemination

Research that never gets shared has limited benefits. Research dissemination involves sharing research findings with the relevant audiences so the research’s impact and utility can reach its full potential.

When done effectively, dissemination gets the research into the hands of those it can most positively impact. This may include:

Politicians

Industry professionals

The general public

What it takes to effectively disseminate research will depend greatly on the audience the research is intended for. When planning for research dissemination, it pays to understand some guiding principles and best practices so the right audience can be targeted in the most effective way.

Core principles of effective dissemination

Effective dissemination of research findings requires careful planning. Before planning can begin, researchers must think about the core principles of research dissemination and how their research and its goals fit into those constructs.

Research dissemination principles can best be described using the 3 Ps of research dissemination.

This pillar of research dissemination is about clarifying the objective. What is the goal of disseminating the information? Is the research meant to:

Persuade policymakers?

Influence public opinion?

Support strategic business decisions?

Contribute to academic discourse?

Knowing the purpose of sharing the information makes it easy to accurately target it and align the language used with the target audience.

The process includes the methods that will be used and the steps taken when it comes time to disseminate the findings. This includes the channels by which the information will be shared, the format it will be shared in, and the timing of the dissemination.

By planning out the process and taking the time to understand the process, researchers will be better prepared and more flexible should changes arise.

The target audience is whom the research is aimed at. Because different audiences require different approaches and language styles, identifying the correct audience is a huge factor in the successful dissemination of findings.

By tailoring the research dissemination to the needs and preferences of a specific audience, researchers increase the chances of the information being received, understood, and used.

Types of research dissemination

There are many options for researchers to get their findings out to the world. The type of desired dissemination plays a big role in choosing the medium and the tone to take when sharing the information.

Some common types include:

Academic dissemination: Sharing research findings in academic journals, which typically involves a peer-review process.

Policy-oriented dissemination: Creating documents that summarize research findings in a way that's understandable to policymakers.

Public dissemination: Using television and other media outlets to communicate research findings to the public.

Educational dissemination: Developing curricula for education settings that incorporate research findings.

Digital and online dissemination: Using digital platforms to present research findings to a global audience.

Strategic business presentation: Creating a presentation for a business group to use research insights to shape business strategy

Major components of information dissemination

While the three Ps provide a convenient overview of what needs to be considered when planning research dissemination, they are not a complete picture.

Here’s a more comprehensive list of what goes into the dissemination of research results:

Audience analysis : Identifying the target audience and researching their needs, preferences, and knowledge level so content can be tailored to them.

Content development: Creating the content in a way that accurately reflects the findings and presents them in a way that is relevant to the target audience.

Channel selection: Choosing the channel or channels through which the research will be disseminated and ensuring they align with the preferences and needs of the target audience.

Timing and scheduling: Evaluating factors such as current events, publication schedules, and project milestones to develop a timeline for the dissemination of the findings.

Resource allocation: With the basics mapped out, financial, human, and technological resources can be set aside for the project to facilitate the dissemination process.

Impact assessment and feedback: During the dissemination, methods should be in place to measure how successful the strategy has been in disseminating the information.

Ethical considerations and compliance: Research findings often include sensitive or confidential information. Any legal and ethical guidelines should be followed.

Crafting a dissemination blueprint

With the three Ps providing a foundation and the components outlined above giving structure to the dissemination, researchers can then dive deeper into the important steps in crafting an impactful and informative presentation.

Let’s take a look at the core steps.

1. Identify your audience

To identify the right audience for research dissemination, researchers must gather as much detail as possible about the different target audience segments.

By gathering detailed information about the preferences, personalities, and information-consumption habits of the target audience, researchers can craft messages that resonate effectively.

As a simple example, academic findings might be highly detailed for scholarly journals and simplified for the general public. Further refinements can be made based on the cultural, educational, and professional background of the target audience.

2. Create the content

Creating compelling content is at the heart of effective research dissemination. Researchers must distill complex findings into a format that's engaging and easy to understand. In addition to the format of the presentation and the language used, content includes the visual or interactive elements that will make up the supporting materials.

Depending on the target audience, this may include complex technical jargon and charts or a more narrative approach with approachable infographics. For non-specialist audiences, the challenge is to provide the required information in a way that's engaging for the layperson.

3. Take a strategic approach to dissemination

There's no single best solution for all research dissemination needs. What’s more, technology and how target audiences interact with it is constantly changing. Developing a strategic approach to sharing research findings requires exploring the various methods and channels that align with the audience's preferences.

Each channel has a unique reach and impact, and a particular set of best practices to get the most out of it. Researchers looking to have the biggest impact should carefully weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of the channels they've decided upon and craft a strategy that best uses that knowledge.

4. Manage the timeline and resources

Time constraints are an inevitable part of research dissemination. Deadlines for publications can be months apart, conferences may only happen once a year, etc. Any avenue used to disseminate the research must be carefully planned around to avoid missed opportunities.

In addition to properly planning and allocating time, there are other resources to consider. The appropriate number of people must be assigned to work on the project, and they must be given adequate financial and technological resources. To best manage these resources, regular reviews and adjustments should be made.

Tailoring communication of research findings

We’ve already mentioned the importance of tailoring a message to a specific audience. Here are some examples of how to reach some of the most common target audiences of research dissemination.

Making formal presentations

Content should always be professional, well-structured, and supported by data and visuals when making formal presentations. The depth of information provided should match the expertise of the audience, explaining key findings and implications in a way they'll understand. To be persuasive, a clear narrative and confident delivery are required.

Communication with stakeholders

Stakeholders often don't have the same level of expertise that more direct peers do. The content should strike a balance between providing technical accuracy and being accessible enough for everyone. Time should be taken to understand the interests and concerns of the stakeholders and align the message accordingly.

Engaging with the public

Members of the public will have the lowest level of expertise. Not everyone in the public will have a technical enough background to understand the finer points of your message. Try to minimize confusion by using relatable examples and avoiding any jargon. Visual aids are important, as they can help the audience to better understand a topic.

10 commandments for impactful research dissemination

In addition to the details above, there are a few tips that researchers can keep in mind to boost the effectiveness of dissemination:

Master the three Ps to ensure clarity, focus, and coherence in your presentation.

Establish and maintain a public profile for all the researchers involved.

When possible, encourage active participation and feedback from the audience.

Use real-time platforms to enable communication and feedback from viewers.

Leverage open-access platforms to reach as many people as possible.

Make use of visual aids and infographics to share information effectively.

Take into account the cultural diversity of your audience.

Rather than considering only one dissemination medium, consider the best tool for a particular job, given the audience and research to be delivered.

Continually assess and refine your dissemination strategies as you gain more experience.

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

Start for free today, add your research, and get to key insights faster

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 18 April 2023

Last updated: 27 February 2023

Last updated: 6 February 2023

Last updated: 6 October 2023

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 April 2023

Last updated: 7 March 2023

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 6 March 2024

Last updated: 5 March 2024

Last updated: 13 May 2024

Latest articles

Related topics, .css-je19u9{-webkit-align-items:flex-end;-webkit-box-align:flex-end;-ms-flex-align:flex-end;align-items:flex-end;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-flex-direction:row;-ms-flex-direction:row;flex-direction:row;-webkit-box-flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;-webkit-box-pack:center;-ms-flex-pack:center;-webkit-justify-content:center;justify-content:center;row-gap:0;text-align:center;max-width:671px;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}}@media (max-width: 799px){.css-je19u9{max-width:400px;}.css-je19u9>span{white-space:pre;}} decide what to .css-1kiodld{max-height:56px;display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;}@media (max-width: 1079px){.css-1kiodld{display:none;}} build next, decide what to build next.

Users report unexpectedly high data usage, especially during streaming sessions.

Users find it hard to navigate from the home page to relevant playlists in the app.

It would be great to have a sleep timer feature, especially for bedtime listening.

I need better filters to find the songs or artists I’m looking for.

Log in or sign up

Get started for free

Internet Explorer is no longer supported by Microsoft. To browse the NIHR site please use a modern, secure browser like Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Microsoft Edge.

How to disseminate your research

Published: 01 January 2019

Version: Version 1.0 - January 2019

This guide is for researchers who are applying for funding or have research in progress. It is designed to help you to plan your dissemination and give your research every chance of being utilised.

What does NIHR mean by dissemination?

Effective dissemination is simply about getting the findings of your research to the people who can make use of them, to maximise the benefit of the research without delay.

Research is of no use unless it gets to the people who need to use it

Professor Chris Whitty, Chief Scientific Adviser for the Department of Health

Principles of good dissemination

Stakeholder engagement: Work out who your primary audience is; engage with them early and keep in touch throughout the project, ideally involving them from the planning of the study to the dissemination of findings. This should create ‘pull’ for your research i.e. a waiting audience for your outputs. You may also have secondary audiences and others who emerge during the study, to consider and engage.

Format: Produce targeted outputs that are in an appropriate format for the user. Consider a range of tailored outputs for decision makers, patients, researchers, clinicians, and the public at national, regional, and/or local levels as appropriate. Use plain English which is accessible to all audiences.

Utilise opportunities: Build partnerships with established networks; use existing conferences and events to exchange knowledge and raise awareness of your work.

Context: Understand the service context of your research, and get influential opinion leaders on board to act as champions. Timing: Dissemination should not be limited to the end of a study. Consider whether any findings can be shared earlier

Remember to contact your funding programme for guidance on reporting outputs .

Your dissemination plan: things to consider

What do you want to achieve, for example, raise awareness and understanding, or change practice? How will you know if you are successful and made an impact? Be realistic and pragmatic.

Identify your audience(s) so that you know who you will need to influence to maximise the uptake of your research e.g. commissioners, patients, clinicians and charities. Think who might benefit from using your findings. Understand how and where your audience looks for/receives information. Gain an insight into what motivates your audience and the barriers they may face.

Remember to feedback study findings to participants, such as patients and clinicians; they may wish to also participate in the dissemination of the research and can provide a powerful voice.

When will dissemination activity occur? Identify and plan critical time points, consider external influences, and utilise existing opportunities, such as upcoming conferences. Build momentum throughout the entire project life-cycle; for example, consider timings for sharing findings.

Think about the expertise you have in your team and whether you need additional help with dissemination. Consider whether your dissemination plan would benefit from liaising with others, for example, NIHR Communications team, your institution’s press office, PPI members. What funds will you need to deliver your planned dissemination activity? Include this in your application (or talk to your funding programme).

Partners / Influencers: think about who you will engage with to amplify your message. Involve stakeholders in research planning from an early stage to ensure that the evidence produced is grounded, relevant, accessible and useful.

Messaging: consider the main message of your research findings. How can you frame this so it will resonate with your target audience? Use the right language and focus on the possible impact of your research on their practice or daily life.

Channels: use the most effective ways to communicate your message to your target audience(s) e.g. social media, websites, conferences, traditional media, journals. Identify and connect with influencers in your audience who can champion your findings.

Coverage and frequency: how many people are you trying to reach? How often do you want to communicate with them to achieve the required impact?

Potential risks and sensitivities: be aware of the relevant current cultural and political climate. Consider how your dissemination might be perceived by different groups.

Think about what the risks are to your dissemination plan e.g. intellectual property issues. Contact your funding programme for advice.

More advice on dissemination

We want to ensure that the research we fund has the maximum benefit for patients, the public and the NHS. Generating meaningful research impact requires engaging with the right people from the very beginning of planning your research idea.

More advice from the NIHR on knowledge mobilisation and dissemination .

Request new password
Create a new account

Doing Research in Counselling and Psychotherapy

Student resources, disseminating the findings of your research study.

It is very important to find appropriate ways to disseminate the findings of your research – projects that sit on office or library shelves and are seldom or never read represent a tragic loss to the profession.

A key dimension of research dissemination is to be actively involved with potential audiences for your work, and help them to understand what it means to them. These dialogues also represent invaluable learning experiences for researchers, in terms of developing new ideas and appreciating the methodological limitations of their work. An inspiring example of how to do this can be found in:

Granek, L., & Nakash, O. (2016). The impact of qualitative research on the “real world” knowledge translation as education, policy, clinical training, and clinical practice. Journal of Humanistic Psychology , 56(4), 414 – 435.

A further key dimension of research dissemination lies in the act of writing. There are a number of challenges associated with writing counselling and psychotherapy research papers, such as the need to adhere to journal formats, and the need (sometimes) to weave personal reflective writing into a predominantly third-person standard academic style. The items in the following sections explore these challenges from a variety of perspectives.

Suggestions for becoming a more effective academic writer

Sources of advice on how to ease the pain of writing:

Gioia, D. (2019). Gioia’s rules of the game. Journal of Management Inquiry , 28(1), 113 – 115.

Greenhalgh, T. (2019). Twitter women’s tips on academic writing: a female response to Gioia’s rules of the game. Journal of Management Inquiry , 28(4), 484 – 487.

Roulston, K. (2019). Learning how to write successfully from academic writers. The Qualitative Report, 24(7), 1778 – 1781.

Writing tips from the student centre, University of Berkeley

The transition from being a therapist to being a researcher

Finlay, L. (2020). How to write a journal article: Top tips for the novice writer. European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy , 10, 28 – 40.

McBeath, A., Bager-Charleson, S., & Abarbanel, A. (2019). Therapists and academic writing: “Once upon a time psychotherapy practitioners and researchers were the same people”. European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy , 9, 103 – 116.

McPherson, A. (2020). Dissertation to published article: A journey from shame to sharing. European Journal for Qualitative Research in Psychotherapy , 10, 41 – 52.

Journal article style requirements of the American Psychological Association (including a section on writing quantitative papers)

Writing qualitative reports

Jonsen, K., Fendt, J., & Point, S. (2018). Convincing qualitative research: What constitutes persuasive writing? Organizational Research Methods , 21(1), 30 – 67.

Ponterotto, J.G. & Grieger, I. (2007). Effectively communicating qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist , 35, 404 – 430.

Smith, L., Rosenzweig, L. & Schmidt, M. (2010). Best practices in the reporting of participatory action research: embracing both the forest and the trees. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 1115 – 1138.

Staller, K.M. & Krumer-Nevo, M. (2013). Successful qualitative articles: A tentative list of cautionary advice. Qualitative Social Work, 12, 247 – 253.

Clark, A.M. & Thompson, D.R. (2016). Five tips for writing qualitative research in high-impact journals: moving from #BMJnoQual . International Journal of Qualitative Methods , 15, 1 – 3

Gustafson, D. L., Parsons, J. E., & Gillingham, B. (2019). Writing to transgress: Knowledge production in feminist participatory action research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 20 . DOI: 10.17169/fqs-20.2.3164

Caulley, D.N. (2008). Making qualitative reports less boring: the techniques of writing creative nonfiction. Qualitative Inquiry, 14, 424 – 449.

What is the dissemination of research and why is it so important?

Learn what is research dissemination, how to quantify its effectiveness, and how to improve it by including an excellent graphical abstract.

Every research paper should include a component for dissemination and communication of research findings. Both lead to a greater understanding of research findings, improved public engagement in science, and higher social respect in research.

Effective dissemination of researc h simply means delivering your research findings to the individuals who can utilize them as soon as possible in order to maximize the usefulness of the research.

Here you will find experience gathered and recommendations based on learnings. You will learn how to reach a large audience within the scientific community and make a difference with your research.

Why is the dissemination of research important?

Doing research is a great way to aggregate value to the scientific community, but what does it matter if you do a good research if you don’t have the right audience or anyone to read?

Dissemination of research results is an important aspect of the research process because it ensures that the benefits of the study are passed on to others and that it is put to good use.

A research’s proper dissemination is however supposed to draw the attention of governments or stakeholders to the research’s outcomes, giving a social, political, or economic impact. The dissemination of your research will boost its visibility, comprehension, and even execution.

Open science for all

Open Science is a movement whose goal is to make scientific research, data, and dissemination available to anybody. It affects scientific development and public access ideals, such as public research publications, with the ultimate objective of making it easier to publish and disseminate scientific knowledge. Disseminating information and making sure it’s available to anyone is beneficial not just to research but also to the economy and society.

There are now programs being developed to make it easier to accomplish the aim of open science to everybody, part of Publishing Open Science, such as: The Public Library of Science , which is a library that provides open access to journals and scientific literature; arXiv is a system that provides electronic preprints in a wide range of fields; F1000Research is another platform that offers publication of life, science, and other articles without editorial bias; and bioRxiv is a free platform that archives and distributes unpublished preprints.

There’s also the Open Science Cloud, which is supposed to allow academics to use existing information and data in new, complementary ways, as well as the European Science Cloud and Open Science Framework .

Indicators of disseminating a research

When disseminating your study, you must assess if the dissemination is producing the desired results. In order to measure the overall effectiveness, all research initiatives should be extensively evaluated in order to determine which approaches succeeded and which did not provide the intended results.

Your dissemination may be evaluated using both qualitative and quantitative measurements. Assessing and selecting the most effective practices will provide evidence for the most successful techniques for reaching your target audience.

Qualitative measurements

The creation and distribution of printed materials;
Updates, visits, interactions, likes and reports: check websites and social media platforms to evaluate performance;
The number of events organized for certain audiences;
The number of people who attend those events;
Media coverage;
Citations of publications.

Quantitative measurements

New connections with networks and partners;
The consequences of these interactions;
Visibility in social media;
Attractiveness in website;
Feedback from the audience.

How can a graphical abstract help disseminate your research?

There are so many researchers releasing every day that it might be tough to distinguish your research from the crowd, there’s a major concern on how to make a study stand out aesthetically from the rest.

Visual assets are vital in grabbing the reader’s attention, boosting dissemination and access, and improving textual information, allowing the reader to comprehend critical topics more quickly and effectively. Therefore, including a graphical abstract in your research is a good way to promote your work and make it stand out among the many others, hence increasing visibility.

How to create a graphical abstract easily?

There are various benefits to using a graphical abstract in your research, and the Mind The Graph tool can help you do so! You may go from a scientist to a designer and create amazing visual content by utilizing the tool, which is surprisingly simple to use and has a large library that includes everything you could ever need.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

About Jessica Abbadia

Jessica Abbadia is a lawyer that has been working in Digital Marketing since 2020, improving organic performance for apps and websites in various regions through ASO and SEO. Currently developing scientific and intellectual knowledge for the community's benefit. Jessica is an animal rights activist who enjoys reading and drinking strong coffee.

Content tags

Reserve a study room
Library Account
Undergraduate Students
Graduate Students
Faculty & Staff

Create a Research Dissemination Plan

Research Dissemination
Dissemination Plan Examples
Dissemination Plan Template
Guide Background
Does your research contain sensitive or protected data? Will you need to place conditions or restrictions on the recipient? Which parts of your research are you allowing your recipient to use for publication?
How will you share with other academic researchers, and how will you share with any community members involved in the research?
How will you share with other end users and stakeholders for your research?
What does utilization of your research look like for each of these audiences? Or, what are the outcomes you want your research to produce?
What are your shared mission or goals?
How can you build relationships with these partners?
What resources are available for dissemination (people, fundings, skills, etc.)?
Face-to-face or online?
How will you “package” your research for different audiences?
Where and how do each of your audiences get their information?
What potential difficulties are there in communicating with your audiences? For example, do they see you as a trusted source of information? Are there barriers to their receiving or finding your research or to their ability to utilize it?
How will you know/measure success? Impact on researchers? Impact for community?
What kind of indicators or assessment measures can you use?
Is your dissemination an ongoing conversation? For how long will you continue to share information, and are you concerned about sustainability of your project outcomes?
What actions and strategies will you take to disseminate your research?
When and how frequently will you share your data and findings, including preliminary findings, your research process and methodology, and any lessons learned? When is it most valuable for each of your audiences to receive your research findings?
Who is responsible for each step in your plan?
<< Previous: Dissemination Plan Examples
Next: Guide Background >>
Last Updated: Nov 20, 2023 11:33 AM
URL: https://guides.library.vcu.edu/dissemination

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings
My Bibliography
Collections
Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

Create a new collection
Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

Search in PubMed
Search in NLM Catalog
Add to Search

Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases

Affiliation.

1 School of Medicine, Health Policy and Practice, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
PMID: 20181324
DOI: 10.3310/hta14080

Objectives: To identify and appraise empirical studies on publication and related biases published since 1998; to assess methods to deal with publication and related biases; and to examine, in a random sample of published systematic reviews, measures taken to prevent, reduce and detect dissemination bias.

Data sources: The main literature search, in August 2008, covered the Cochrane Methodology Register Database, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED and CINAHL. In May 2009, PubMed, PsycINFO and OpenSIGLE were also searched. Reference lists of retrieved studies were also examined.

Review methods: In Part I, studies were classified as evidence or method studies and data were extracted according to types of dissemination bias or methods for dealing with it. Evidence from empirical studies was summarised narratively. In Part II, 300 systematic reviews were randomly selected from MEDLINE and the methods used to deal with publication and related biases were assessed.

Results: Studies with significant or positive results were more likely to be published than those with non-significant or negative results, thereby confirming findings from a previous HTA report. There was convincing evidence that outcome reporting bias exists and has an impact on the pooled summary in systematic reviews. Studies with significant results tended to be published earlier than studies with non-significant results, and empirical evidence suggests that published studies tended to report a greater treatment effect than those from the grey literature. Exclusion of non-English-language studies appeared to result in a high risk of bias in some areas of research such as complementary and alternative medicine. In a few cases, publication and related biases had a potentially detrimental impact on patients or resource use. Publication bias can be prevented before a literature review (e.g. by prospective registration of trials), or detected during a literature review (e.g. by locating unpublished studies, funnel plot and related tests, sensitivity analysis modelling), or its impact can be minimised after a literature review (e.g. by confirmatory large-scale trials, updating the systematic review). The interpretation of funnel plot and related statistical tests, often used to assess publication bias, was often too simplistic and likely misleading. More sophisticated modelling methods have not been widely used. Compared with systematic reviews published in 1996, recent reviews of health-care interventions were more likely to locate and include non-English-language studies and grey literature or unpublished studies, and to test for publication bias.

Conclusions: Dissemination of research findings is likely to be a biased process, although the actual impact of such bias depends on specific circumstances. The prospective registration of clinical trials and the endorsement of reporting guidelines may reduce research dissemination bias in clinical research. In systematic reviews, measures can be taken to minimise the impact of dissemination bias by systematically searching for and including relevant studies that are difficult to access. Statistical methods can be useful for sensitivity analyses. Further research is needed to develop methods for qualitatively assessing the risk of publication bias in systematic reviews, and to evaluate the effect of prospective registration of studies, open access policy and improved publication guidelines.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

Search in MeSH

Related information

Cited in Books

LinkOut - more resources

Full text sources.

National Institute for Health and Care Research Journals Library

Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Report Page

Trends in Financial Sextortion: An investigation of sextortion reports in NCMEC CyberTipline data

In partnership with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), this research examines more than 15 million reports made to the CyberTipline from 2020 to 2023 to pinpoint cases of sextortion and examine the evolving scale and nature of financially motivated sextortion. Importantly, while sextortion can affect all ages, this report focuses explicitly on the sextortion of minors.

June 24, 2024

20 Minute Read

Key Findings

Sextortion, and particularly financial sextortion, continues to be a major and ongoing threat, with an average of 812 reports of sextortion per week to NCMEC in the last year of data analyzed, and with reason to expect that the vast majority of those reports are financial sextortion.
Perpetrators leverage tactics to intentionally fan a victim’s worry about the life-changing impacts of their nudes being shared—often repeating claims that it will “ruin their life.”
While we find that Instagram and Snapchat are the most common platforms used for sextortion, we observe trends regarding the emergence of additional end-to-end encrypted messaging apps to move victims to secondary platforms and the prevalence of Cash App and gift cards for methods of payment.
The two countries from which sextortion perpetrators are often operating, Nigeria and Cote d’Ivoire, make use of slightly different tactics and platforms.
Reports submitted by Instagram constitute a clear majority of all reports of apparent sextortion submitted to NCMEC. However, there are reasons to worry whether other platforms are underreporting.

Research Conducted in Partnership:

Download Full Report

Introduction

Sextortion – threatening to expose sexual images of someone if they don’t yield to demands- has been a source of harm to youth for some time. In the last several years, concerns about a unique type of sextortion – financial sextortion – have been on the rise. Reports of financial sextortion revolve around demands for money and predominantly target boys, and young men. In addition, financial sextortion marks the emergence of new organized offenders leveraging technology to target and extort minors at scale.

This page reviews several key findings from Thorn’s report on trends in financial sextortion and identifies opportunities for action to safeguard young people from this growing threat effectively. To read the complete research report and explore its findings in greater detail, please download the PDF.

The Rise of Financial Sextortion

Between 3.5 and 5% of people are believed to have experienced sextortion before reaching adulthood, with girls historically more likely than boys to be impacted. Previous surveys have found demands most often were sexual or relational, including but not limited to demands for additional intimate imagery, engaging in sexual acts, or returning or staying in a romantic relationship. Sextortion tied to financial demands was limited, reported in less than 10% of cases.

The overall trend in NCMEC reports shows a large wave of sextortion cases since the beginning of 2022; of the 144 million reports made to NCMEC that year, the hotline received 80,524 reports of online enticement (the reporting category inclusive of sextortion cases), reflecting an 82% increase over the year prior . Although the numbers do not, on their face, differentiate among types of sextortion, analysis of report details demonstrates this increase is driven mainly by reports involving financial sextortion.

NCMEC received an average of 812 sextortion reports per week.

More than two-thirds of these reports appear to be financially motivated..

Reports per week, split by demands of the perpetrator

Unlike historical sextortion reports, this surge of cases targets new groups, with 90% of victims detected in NCMEC reports being male, aged 14 to 17.

90% of victims detected in NCMEC reports were male, aged 14 to 17.

In addition, unlike historical cases where roughly half of the victims knew their abuser from their offline community, the offenders behind these cases appear to be concentrated internationally, with 47% of reports showing ties to Nigeria and Cote d’Ivoire. Additional countries, though in lower volumes, also appear in reports, including the United States, Philippines, United Kingdom, and India.

Given the data originates from NCMEC CyberTipline data (the US hotline to report online child sexual exploitation), it can be expected that some bias exists relating to the geographic distribution of cases appearing in this study.

Victim Impact

Explicit discussion of impacts on the victim was available in only 9% of the cases studied. Accounts among these cases show a range of experiences, including continued harassment after paying, image distribution, and mental health consequences, including depression, anxiety, and thoughts of self-harm.

For the 8.9% of reports where any victim impacts were reported

Note: Categories are exclusive. Any instances where a report described a combination of multiple harm types is solely represented in the “multiple impacts” category.

Continued extortion

Roughly one in three (38%) reports with impact information mentioned making payments. That being said, payments often did not stop the harassment, and 27% of victims who mentioned paying their perpetrator discussed ongoing demands experienced after their first payment.

Other research into sextortion published by the Canadian Center for Child Protection (a study involving both adult and minor experiences) found this outcome to be even more pronounced, with the large majority reporting threats continued even after paying.

Image Dissemination

The distribution of images was a dominant thread in discussions of victim impact. Often, the language used during threats focused on the release of images to highly public forums to increase the risk of viral spread and exposure.

However, in accounts of those who reported their images were, in fact, leaked, distribution channels tended to be more narrowly focused on their immediate friends and family. Discussion of platforms often mentioned in threats of dissemination and reported experiences of dissemination is included later in this research.

Self-harm or suicide

When mental and emotional impacts on victims were reported, we split such content into two categories: a more severe category of discussions of suicidal ideation and/or self-harm and a more general category of “other victim concerns” and mental stresses.

Among reports that include details on victim impact, 1 in 8 discuss thoughts of suicide or self-harm.

Importantly, only a subset of cases include mention of a victim’s situation in report texts—it can be assumed that many victims do not explicitly provide such information about the mental or emotional impact of this experience in the report.

However, other sources of information, such as news articles regarding sextortion victims, can shed additional light on how these pressure tactics and the overall threat of image sharing can culminate in severe consequences such as suicide.

In one such case, a news article notes that perpetrators told the child that he “…would be labeled a pedophile. His parents wouldn’t love him. He wouldn’t be able to get into college or get a job. They would hurt or kill his parents.”

Although, historically, sextortion has often involved more time developing a relationship with the victim and more subtle forms of coercion and manipulation (at least in the earlier phases of the abuse), the tactics seen in reports of financial sextortion to NCMEC often featured aggressive, rapid exchanges highlighting potential life-altering outcomes if victims fail to pay.

In the majority of cases, victims appeared to share a picture in response to images initially sent by the perpetrator, who often appeared to be impersonating another young person (usually an attractive, similarly-aged child). This approach using “catfishing” could serve to lower the victim’s inhibitions to engage while helping to evade platform policies limiting interaction between adult and minor profiles.

Of the 31% of cases where specific methods are indicated for getting imagery from the child, 70% of reports had signs of reciprocating images in response to the perpetrator sharing imagery.

Rate of reports with information about how imagery was required

Note: A report was counted in multiple categories if multiple tactics were used.

However, threats were not always reliant on a victim sharing imagery. In 11% of reports with information about how images were acquired, victims report that they did not send sexual imagery of themselves but were threatened with images that were in some way fake or inauthentic. An additional 6% describe accounts being hacked or images stolen from another account.

While generative AI technologies may be involved in cases of fake or inauthentic imagery, these reports also include less technically advanced tactics. Other descriptions included using another person’s explicit imagery and threatening to say it was that of the victim, and examples of less photorealistic instances of deepfake imagery, including the child’s likeness in a sexual manner.

The chart below outlines the overall frequency of the various tactics perpetrators used to pressure victims out of all reports where conversation data could be measured. The leading tactic cataloged in reports with chat logs included descriptions of life-altering impacts and ruin.

38% of reports with chat logs included exaggerated impacts and/or threats of ruining the victim’s life.

Beyond the threats to leak images, perpetrators describe outcomes such as the viral spread of their photos and distribution, resulting in them being kicked out of school, losing job opportunities, or facing criminal charges as sex offenders.

Methods used to pressure victims out of chats with pressure tactics

When these tactics show up in conversations, they are often formulaic; perpetrators use extremely similar or even identical threats against different victims as if operating off of a script designed to quickly and efficiently coerce victims to pay.

These tables showcase threats that perpetrators have repeated in this exact form four or more times over different reports:

Countdowns & Constant Contact

Perpetrators seem to employ a range of methods to attempt to make sure that their victims are required to make quick decisions, attempt to pay quickly, and do not have an opportunity to seek help from their caregivers or other sources of support.

We coded two ways in which perpetrators imposed such urgency: firstly, the use of countdowns and deadlines to make the victim rush to pay, and secondly, the demand for constant communication and access.

With countdowns and deadlines, perpetrators would give children fixed periods to encourage payment or to extract a promise of a method and amount of payment.

For the second method in which perpetrators demanded constant communication from the child, perpetrators would threaten to expose a child’s imagery if children simply disconnected from the video chat or did not respond in text chat quickly enough.

Sextortion does not happen in a vacuum; how children (and perpetrators) interact with platforms and specific design features can facilitate these sextortion events. We can see this by examining which platforms were used to initially contact children and which were used as a secondary location to which perpetrators would move the conversation.

To avoid bias introduced by platform reporting behaviors, we analyzed how platforms were used in sextortion events via explicit platform mentions in the report text. Any platform mentions were coded to capture how the platform was being discussed.

Initial contact

Of the 3,276 reports that explicitly discussed how platforms were used, 576 had an “initial contact” label; a few core platforms dominate the studied reports as places used for that initial point of contact, as shown in the chart below.

Platforms mentioned more than ten times as an initial meeting platform

Note: A report was counted in multiple categories if multiple platforms were discussed.

Instagram and Snapchat were the most common platforms named as initial contact points in the studied reports, followed by Facebook, Omegle, Wizz, and Wink.

1 in 10 reports with information about the platform of first meeting mentioned Omegle or Wizz as an initial contact point.

Omegle and Wizz, together were mentioned in roughly 10% of reports with initial contact mentions, highlight the role that platforms designed for randomly being connected to strangers might have in enabling perpetrators to get new connections to children (while Omegle shut down in the second half of 2023, many similar competitors exist).

Secondary contact

Thorn surveys have found that 65% of children had experienced someone attempting to get them to “move from a public chat into a private conversation on a different platform.”

This is a common event in sextortion situations, with perpetrators moving children to secondary platforms, possibly because a platform may be less likely to detect the abusive behavior and/or where the child may be more likely to share content.

When we look at platforms that were coded as being used as a “secondary location,” where a report identified that the victim was moved from one platform to another (869 reports mention such a secondary location), we found that the most common platforms to which these interactions were moved are Snapchat and GChat, as shown in the chart below. Other prominent platforms mentioned included WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram, iMessage, Facebook, and Discord.

Platforms mentioned as a destination where conversation is moved to

Note: Platforms included if mentioned 15 or more times in this role. A report was counted in multiple categories if multiple platforms were discussed. Google encompasses google messaging services but not Youtube.

Private messaging environments are popular among young people sending intimate images. A recent survey of youth found that 41% of teens who shared nudes did so via “Texting or messaging apps like WhatsApp”, 39% did so via “DM (Direct Message) in apps where the content disappears, like Snapchat”, and 30% did so via “DM (Direct Message) in the messaging feature of a social media app like Instagram or Twitter.” The next most common channel was via FaceTime or other video call/chat.

Threats often focused on the victim’s imagery being leaked in a highly public fashion, fueling fears of lasting consequences and embarrassment. A wide list of platforms were named in threats of distribution, including some with broad public reach. However, the platforms named explicitly as the location of distribution tended towards more direct network distribution rather than a general public audience.

While any experience of distribution increases the harm to the victim, fewer public points of initial distribution offer the hope of limiting the extent of exposure of the material and increase the potential to stifle wide dissemination with resources like NCMEC’s Take It Down .

The chart below shows a comparison of threatened versus actual reported sites of image leaks. When looking at reports where victims stated that their images were actually leaked, the most common distribution platform mentioned was Instagram. Additional platforms named in reports of image dissemination, but at lower volumes, included YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, and TikTok.

Platforms discussed as place where imagery would be disseminated

Note: Shows platforms mentioned 30 or more times for distribution. Of 1,837 reports with one or more platforms of threatened distribution, 102 confirmed distribution.

Chats frequently involve mention of payment methods or platforms. We measured named payment platforms and more general payment approaches such as gift cards or cryptocurrencies.

The most common payment methods were CashApp and gift cards, followed by other easy-use payment apps such as PayPal and Venmo. The dominance of gift cards and Cash App has slightly increased over time relative to other payment services.

Payment platforms mentioned in reports

Note: A report was counted in multiple categories if multiple payment methods were discussed.

Reporting Landscape

Reporting activity across Electronic Service Providers (ESPs) relating to sextortion is widely varied, both in terms of reporting frequency and report contents. ESP reports of sextortion are currently the overwhelmingly leading signal into NCMEC that a child is being sextorted, making up 85% of the total reports of sextortion during the sampled timeframe.

Dominant reporters

Three platforms stand out as the driving force behind these numbers: reports from Instagram constitute a large percentage of all ESP reports coming in where sextortion is reported, followed by Facebook and Snapchat.

There are a number of notable changes in the trends over time for reporting platforms, shown in the chart below (these trends are purely about the reporting platform itself and thus are not necessarily proportional to where the sextortion took place).

Number of reports per week submitted by an ESP or to NCMEC public form.

Note: Platforms shown submitted 5 or more sextortion reports per week. The apparent drop in “Direct to NCMEC” reports between 2023-05 and 2023-08 is due to missing data (data not available at time of analysis) rather than due to a drop in submitted reports.

The first is a sharp increase of cases submitted by ESPs starting in the middle of 2022; that increase could reflect the actual increase in sextortion at that time but might also reflect work that NCMEC did in raising alarms about financial sextortion to the platforms in June of 2022.

This data shows a dip in reports in the first half of 2023, but is followed by a return to this high rate by the last period studied, August 2023. This is reflected in increases both in Instagram and Snapchat data in August of 2023.

As Instagram reports constitute the majority of all reported sextortion, those changes in Instagram reports can dwarf all other trends in order to define the overall trends in sextortion.

Reporting timeframes

The time it takes for an ESP to become aware of a sextortion event (either through proactive solutions or user reporting) and subsequently assess and report the event to NCMEC impacts how closely the overall volume of reports to NCMEC reflects the volume of sextortion events over time.

Put another way, the data suggests the dip in reports by Instagram and Facebook in May 2023 is less a reflection of a drop in sextortion activity on these platforms and more likely a reflection of changes in the content moderation pipeline submitting these reports to NCMEC.

Several things may influence the time between the event and a report to NCMEC by an ESP, not all of which are in control of the ESP submitting the report. Among them are the existence and efficacy of proactive detection practices, changes in offender tactics, dependence on user reporting, and efficiency of content moderation pipelines.

The chart below presents the median time between sextortion events and their reports for the main three sextortion-reporting platforms over the last two years, showing variable referral speeds during the studied window of reports.

Facebook and Instagram report referrals accelerated at the beginning of the study window, stabilizing with report referrals within days of the incident for the second half of 2022. However, in 2023, report referral time increased, arriving at a median period of more than a month by August 2023.

Median number of days between incident and submission of report to NCMEC

Initial analysis of Facebook and Instagram reports from November 2023 indicates shorter report referral times. This suggests the dip followed by an increase in reporting volume may be due to slower reporting rather than an actual dip and increase in sextortion activity.

Similarly, the data suggests the spike in report activity in late 2022 is not a result of a reporting backlog, as the time between event and report is relatively short, but may point to improved detection and/or increased sextortion activity.

Although increasing time lags in reporting are concerning, it is important to recognize the inherent difficulties in detecting and responding to sextortion cases. We do not know if these delays are primarily due to changes in content moderation, advances in detection technology, or shifts in user or perpetrator behavior. Furthermore, we should acknowledge the positive impact of periods where platforms were swiftly responding to sextortion events and focus on how platforms can be encouraged to maintain such responsive reporting to NCMEC.

Report Contents

When an ESP observes signals suggesting immediate risk to a minor, they may utilize an “ESP escalation” field in which a report can be flagged to NCMEC for more urgent study, with a summary characterizing the event such as “This account is sextorting an apparent minor.”

Historically, Facebook and Instagram have frequently escalated sextortion cases and provided additional context, such as chat information. Snapchat had typically provided basic report information but had seldom escalated cases and rarely included chat information or child victim information.

However, reports from Snapchat have seen some increase in report detail with the addition of small chat excerpts or other information about the victim.

The timeliness and detail provided in NCMEC reports impact how quickly and effectively we are combating financial sextortion and safeguarding victims. Changes to platform design and content moderation policies, particularly when evaluating the implementation of encryption, must account for this to mitigate unintended impacts on child safety.

Gaps in reporting

The number of platform reports of sextortion is not directly equal to the number of sextortion events on that platform. In fact, higher volumes of reports can also signal increased platform investment in detecting and combating this harm type on their service.

By examining the number of times specific platforms are mentioned in public reports (as compared to the volume of reports made to NCMEC by the individual ESPs), we can offer one tentative way to estimate how many reports one might expect.

The chart below shows a distribution over how often platforms are mentioned in sextortion cases submitted to NCMEC by the public (via public form or hotline) over the last three years, as logged by NCMEC analysts . I t shows that Snapchat is mentioned almost as often as Instagram and that there are a range of platforms that are mentioned more than 20 times in any direct reports to NCMEC.

Platforms mentioned 30 or more times in sextortion cases

Note: Mentions of Google encompassed messaging services but not Youtube.

In this data, we see gaps between how many reports of sextortion an ESP submits to NCMEC, compared to how often that ESP is mentioned in public reports. For example, while Snapchat was mentioned nearly as often as Instagram and far more than Facebook in public reports, report volume directly from the platform is almost half that of Facebook and a quarter as much as Instagram. However, the latest report period in August showed an uptick in Snapchat reports, indicating possible improvements in reporting workflows.

Similarly, Discord was mentioned in public reports at a somewhat similar pace to Omegle or Wink (all being mentioned in sextortion reports roughly once every two weeks) and half as often as WhatsApp or Wizz, but Discord submitted more reports of sextortion to NCMEC in the periods we sampled than all of those platforms combined (although some platforms such as WhatsApp may relay reports to other platforms.)

Note: No reports were submitted by Wizz. ‘Google’ here encompasses Google messaging products but does not count mentions of Youtube. Meta at times submits a single CyberTipline report regarding an event involving multiple Meta services (for example a report made by Facebook may include sextortion occurring on WhatsApp). In these instances, the data in this study only reflects the specific platform that made the report.

Lower rates than anticipated by comparing public and ESP reports could occur for several reasons. Some platforms may be better at proactive detection, and some parts of the sextortion experience may be more likely to be reported by the victim. In addition, some platforms may not have reporting flows that allow victims to easily convey that sextortion is occurring or may fail to pass along the data clearly to NCMEC.

Financial payment platforms may also report to NCMEC. We observe sextortion reports from PayPal Inc., which includes both Venmo and PayPal. Other financial service companies are not registered to report to NCMEC, or do not make substantive reports, for example, Block Inc., which includes CashApp, the most commonly mentioned payment platform in sextortion reports we examined.

Looking ahead

The analysis of data available in CyberTipline reports affords us concrete data regarding the scale, tactics, and impacts of financial sextortion. The emergence of organized, global threats demands cross-sector and multi-layered collaboration to effectively safeguard young people from this growing threat. Since the final reports were analyzed in this study, we’ve been heartened to see several examples of this type of innovation and collaboration, and we’re eager to see this work continue.

Technology is being used to scale attacks while threats of dire outcomes – which often mirror societal warnings – fuel victim isolation.

Financial sextortion is a global phenomenon. Detection tools, moderation endeavors, and prevention messaging must be built with this in mind, serving both English and non-English-speaking young people.

Though most victims are manipulated into sharing intimate images in response to catfishing and responding to an initial share of intimate imagery from a perpetrator, financial sextortion does not exclusively target children who have shared an intimate image, and use of genAI technologies may lead to an increase in these cases.

Financial sextortion relies heavily on inflaming a victim’s fears around the impact of having their nudes exposed, such as that they would go viral or send the child to jail.

Safeguarding tactics must evolve beyond ‘just don’t share images’ and if you do, ‘you’re life will be ruined’. The threat of life-altering consequences is being weaponized to silence and isolate victims.

Platform reporting of sextortion is widely varied, and sextortion is less likely to be reported on some platforms.

Platform reports play a vital role in identifying and escalating sextortion activity to NCMEC, as well as informing the public’s understanding of the evolving nature of sextortion. However, not all reports are created equal. Reports range in detail. This not only impacts the ability to action the report to safeguard impacted victims, it also limits our ability to explore the issue and the efficacy of existing platform interventions ranging from user reporting to proactive detection as well as develop novel solutions to combat the threat.

Further, reports from the public concerning financial sextortion suggest a far wider list of impacted platforms than are actively reporting to the CyberTipline. While opportunities exist to optimize report contents among active reporting platforms, current reporting volumes from some platforms lag considerably behind public reports. A multitude of tactics can be deployed, including in private messaging services, to improve user safety. Layering proactive and reactive solutions can serve to both deter abuse of services and encourage user-controlled safety actions.

Methodology

Samples and analysis.

This research was conducted by Thorn in partnership with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) . NCMEC is a private, non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation whose mission is to help find missing children, reduce child sexual exploitation, and prevent child victimization.

NCMEC received over 32 million reports in 2022. To focus on a representative but reasonable amount of data, our analysis concentrated on a subset of reports received between 2020 and 2023. We defined four two-week periods each year for the last three years (every three months, starting on the 8th and ending on the 21st of February, May, August, and November) and studied all reports submitted to NCMEC within those periods (the sampled data totals more than 15 million reports).

This study was limited to specific fields within CyberTipline reports, as prepared and provided by NCMEC, and did not include attached files such as screenshots of chat logs or other image files.

Our analysis highlighted all reports appearing to relate to sextortion, building off initial annotations provided by NCMEC analysts as part of the report intake process. This report started from those annotations and augmented the initial sample of sextortion reports using machine learning algorithms to identify potential sextortion cases for additional annotation. Cases flagged through this process were manually reviewed to verify inclusion for analysis. Reports in the sampled data were manually coded to measure variables such as tactics, platform mentions, monetary quantities, and victim impacts.

limitations

This analysis is limited to the data contained in CyberTipline reports, as provided by NCMEC. As such, events not reported to the CyberTipline or data not included in the report’s contents are not included.
Analyzed data is from sampled time windows and thus can only be used as an estimate.
This is a rapidly evolving abuse type. Tactics and tools may have evolved since the last studied reports.

Download the full report for a more detailed discussion of methodology and limitations.

Suggested citation

Thorn and National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). (2024). Trends in Financial Sextortion: An investigation of sextortion reports in NCMEC CyberTipline data.

Financial sextortion continues to be a major issue, and it is important to have resources available that can address financial sextortion and help children. Some important resources are provided below:

For those experiencing sextortion

If you believe you or someone you know is a victim of exploitation, file a report with NCMEC’s CyberTipline, or ask for help directly at [email protected] or 1-800-THE-LOST.

For those located outside of the US, use the InHope hotline directory to find your local hotline.

Learn more about the steps you can take:

https://www.stopsextortion.com/
https://nofiltr.org/resource/what-is-sextortion/

For those worried about their imagery being shared

Take It Down is a free service that can help you remove or stop the online sharing of nude, partially nude, or sexually explicit images or videos taken of you when you were under 18 years old. You can remain anonymous while using the service, and you won’t have to send your images or videos to anyone.

If you are over the age of 18 years old, you can initiate a case with StopNCII .

For more information about what to do when your imagery is at risk, check out NCMEC’s resources .

Additional resources and information on sextortion

To learn more about sextortion, head over to our dedicated topic page on Grooming and Sextortion .

For more information and resources, take a look at the following:

https://www.missingkids.org/theissues/sextortion
https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/sextortion
NCMEC Connect Sextortion Module

Interested in Thorn research?

Join our research distribution list to stay up to date on our latest research findings.

Systematic review
Open access
Published: 15 October 2020

Strategies for effective dissemination of research to United States policymakers: a systematic review

Laura Ellen Ashcraft ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9957-0617 1 ,
Deirdre A. Quinn 2 &
Ross C. Brownson 3 , 4

Implementation Science volume 15 , Article number: 89 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

41k Accesses

53 Citations

41 Altmetric

Metrics details

Research has the potential to influence US social policy; however, existing research in this area lacks a coherent message. The Model for Dissemination of Research provides a framework through which to synthesize lessons learned from research to date on the process of translating research to US policymakers.

The peer-reviewed and grey literature was systematically reviewed to understand common strategies for disseminating social policy research to policymakers in the United States. We searched Academic Search Premier, PolicyFile, SocINDEX, Social Work Abstracts, and Web of Science from January 1980 through December 2019. Articles were independently reviewed and thematically analyzed by two investigators and organized using the Model for Dissemination of Research.

The search resulted in 5225 titles and abstracts for inclusion consideration. 303 full-text articles were reviewed with 27 meeting inclusion criteria. Common sources of research dissemination included government, academic researchers, the peer reviewed literature, and independent organizations. The most frequently disseminated research topics were health-related, and legislators and executive branch administrators were the most common target audience. Print materials and personal communication were the most common channels for disseminating research to policymakers. There was variation in dissemination channels by level of government (e.g., a more formal legislative process at the federal level compared with other levesl). Findings from this work suggest that dissemination is most effective when it starts early, galvanizes support, uses champions and brokers, considers contextual factors, is timely, relevant, and accessible, and knows the players and process.

Conclusions

Effective dissemination of research to US policymakers exists; yet, rigorous quantitative evaluation is rare. A number of cross-cutting strategies appear to enhance the translation of research evidence into policy.

Registration

Not registered.

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the literature

This is one of the first systematic reviews to synthesize how social policy research evidence is disseminated to US policymakers.

Print materials and personal communications were the most commonly used channels to disseminate social policy research to policymakers.

Several cross-cutting strategies (e.g., start early, use evidence “champions,” make research products more timely, relevant, and accessible) were identified that are likely to lead to more effective translate of research evidence into the policy making process in the United States.

In recent years, social scientists have sought to understand how research may influence policy [ 1 , 2 ]. Interest in this area of investigation has grown with the increased availability of funding for policy-specific research (e.g., dissemination and implementation research) [ 3 ]. However, because of variation in the content of public policy, this emerging area of scholarship lacks a coherent message that specifically addresses social policy in the United States (US). While other studies have examined the use of evidence in policymaking globally [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ], the current review focuses on US social policy; for the purposes of this study, social policy includes policies which focus on antipoverty, economic security, health, education, and social services [ 8 , 9 , 10 ].

Significant international research exists on barriers and facilitators to the dissemination and use of research evidence by policymakers [ 4 , 5 ]. Common themes include the importance of personal relationships, the timeliness of evidence, and resource availability [ 4 , 5 ]. Previous work demonstrates the importance of understanding policymakers’ perceptions and how evidence is disseminated. The current review builds on this existing knowledge to examine how research evidence reaches policymakers and to understand what strategies are likely to be effective in overcoming identified barriers.

Theoretical frameworks offer a necessary foundation to identify and assess strategies for disseminating research to policymakers. The Model for Dissemination of Research integrates Diffusion of Innovations Theory and Social Marketing Theory with the Mathematical Theory of Communication [ 11 , 12 ] and the Matrix of Persuasive Communication [ 13 , 14 ] to address the translation gap between research and policy. The purpose of the Model for Dissemination of Research is to highlight the gaps between research and targets audiences (e.g., policymakers) and improve dissemination through the use of a theoretical foundation and review of the literature [ 15 ]. Diffusion of Innovations Theory describes the spread and adoption of novel interventions through an “s-curve,” ordered process, and characteristics of the message and audience [ 16 ]. Additional theoretical contributions for dissemination research come from Social Marketing Theory, which postulates commercial marketing strategies summarized by the four P’s (produce, price, place, and promotion) and the understanding that communication of the message alone will not change behavior [ 17 ].

The Model for Dissemination of Research includes the four key components described by Shannon and Weaver [ 11 , 12 ] and later McGuire [ 13 , 14 ] of the research translation process: the source, message, audience, and channel (Fig. 1 ). The source includes researchers who generate evidence. The message includes relevant information sent by the source on a policy topic. The audience includes those receiving the message via the channel [ 15 ]. The channel is how the message gets from the source to the audience [ 15 ].

The Model for Dissemination of Research. The Model for Dissemination of Research integrates Diffusion of Innovations Theory, the Mathematical Theory of Communication, and Social Marketing Theory to develop a framework for conceptualizing how information moves from source to audience. Originally published by Brownson et al. in Journal of public health management and practice in 2018

While the Model for Dissemination of Research and its origins (i.e., the Mathematical Theory of Communication and Diffusion of Innovations Theory) appear linear in their presentation, Shannon and Weaver [ 11 , 12 ] and Rogers [ 16 ] clearly acknowledge that the dissemination of information is not a linear process and is effected by the environment within which it occurs. This approach aligns with the system model or knowledge to action approach proposed by Best and Holmes [ 18 ]. The systems model accounts for influence of the environment on a process and accounts for the complexity of the system [ 18 ]. Therefore, while some theoretical depictions appear linear in their presentation; it is important to acknowledge the critical role of systems thinking.

To date, lessons learned from dissemination and implementation science about the ways in which research influences policy are scattered across diverse disciplines and bodies of literature. These disparate lessons highlight the critical need to integrate knowledge across disciplines. The current study aims to make sense of and distill these lessons by conducting a systematic review of scientific literature on the role of research in shaping social policy in the United States. The results of this systematic review are synthesized in a preliminary conceptual model (organized around the Model for Dissemination of Research) with the goal of improving dissemination strategies for the translation of scientific research to policymakers and guiding future research in this area.

This systematic review aims to synthesize existing evidence about how research has been used to influence social policy and is guided by the following research questions:

What are common strategies for using research to influence social policy in the United States?

What is the effectiveness of these strategies?

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-P) model [ 19 , 20 ] to examine and distill existing studies on strategies for using research evidence to influence social policy.

Eligibility criteria

Studies were eligible for this review if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) occurred in the United States; (2) reported in English; (3) systematically evaluated the impact of research on social policy (this typically excluded studies focusing on policymaker dissemination preferences); (4) discussed domestic social policy (as defined above); and (5) were published in the peer reviewed literature or the grey literature (e.g., think tank research briefs, foundation research publications).

We chose to focus our review on the United States to capture the strengths and challenges of its unique, multi-level policy and political environment. The de-centralized structure of government in the United States allows significant decision-making authority at the state and local levels, with wide variation in capacity and the availability of resources across the country [ 21 ]. For example, some states have full-time legislatures while other states have part-time legislatures. In total, these factors create a fitting and complex environment to examine the dissemination of research to policymakers. The influence of lobbying in the United States also differs from other western countries. In the United States, there is more likely to be a “winner-take-all” process where some advocates (often corporations and trade associations) have disproportionate influence [ 22 ]. In addition, the role of evidence differs in the US compared with other countries, where the US tends to take a narrower focus on intervention impact with less emphasis on system-level issues (e.g., implementation, cost) [ 23 ].

Studies were excluded if they were not in English or occurred outside of the United States. We also excluded non-research sources, such as editorials, opinion pieces, and narrative stories that contain descriptions of dissemination strategies without systematic evaluation. Further, studies were excluded if the results focused on practitioners (e.g., case managers, local health department workers) and/or if results for practitioners could not be parsed from results for policymakers.

To identify studies that systematically evaluated the impact of research on social policy, we reviewed the research questions and results of each study to determine whether or not they examined how research evidence reaches policymakers (as opposed to policymaker preferences for disseminated research). For example, we would not include a research study that only describes different types of policy briefs, without also evaluating how the briefs are used by policymakers to inform policy decisions. We used the Model for Dissemination of Research, as defined above, to see if and how the studies describe and test the channels of dissemination. We built on the Model of Dissemination by also considering passive forms of knowledge, such as peer-reviewed literature or research briefs, as potential sources of knowledge and not just as channels in and of themselves.

Information sources

We took a three-pronged approach to develop a comprehensive understanding of existing knowledge in this area. First, we searched the peer reviewed literature using the following databases: Academic Search Premier, PolicyFile, SocINDEX, Social Work Abstracts, and Web of Science. We expanded the inquiry for evidence by searching the grey literature through PolicyFile, and included recommendations from experts in the field of dissemination of research evidence to policymakers resulting in 137 recommended publications.

Search strategy

Our search strategy included the following terms: [research OR study OR studies OR knowledge] AND [policy OR policies OR law OR laws OR legislation] AND [use OR utilization OR utilisation] OR [disseminate OR dissemination OR disseminating] OR [implementation OR implementing OR implement] OR [translate OR translation OR translating]. Our search was limited to studies in the United States between 1980 and 2019. We selected this timeframe based on historical context: the 1950s through the 1970s saw the development of the modern welfare state, which was (relatively) complete by 1980. However, shifting political agendas in the 1980s saw the demand for evidence increase to provide support for social programs [ 24 ]; we hoped to capture this increase in evidence use in policy.

Selection process

All titles and abstracts were screened by the principal investigator (LEA) with 20% reviewed at random by a co-investigator (DAQ) with total agreement post-training. Studies remaining after abstract screening moved to full text review. The full text of each study was considered for inclusion (LEA and DAQ) with conflicts resolved by consensus. The data abstraction form was developed by the principal investigator (LEA) based on previous research [ 25 , 26 ] and with feedback from co-authors. Data were independently abstracted from each reference in duplicate with conflicts resolved by consensus (LEA and DAQ). We completed reliability checks on 20% of the final studies, selected at random, to ensure accurate data abstraction.

Data synthesis

Abstracted data was qualitatively analyzed using thematic analysis (LEA and DAQ) and guided by the Model for Dissemination of Research. The goal of the preliminary conceptual model was to synthesize components of dissemination for studies that evaluate the dissemination of social policy to policymakers.

Descriptive results

The search of the literature resulted in 5675 articles and 137 articles recommended by content experts for review with 5225 titles and abstracts screened after duplicates removed. Of those articles, 4922 were excluded due to not meeting inclusion criteria. Further, 303 full text articles were reviewed with 276 excluded as they did not meet inclusion criteria. Twenty-seven articles met inclusion criteria (see the Fig. 2 for the PRISMA flow diagram).

PRISMA flowchart. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram reports included and excluded articles in the systematic review

Included studies are listed in Table 1 . The 27 included 6 studies using quantitative methods, 18 that employed qualitative methods, and 3 that used a mixed methods approach. The qualitative studies mostly employed interviews ( n = 10), while others used case studies ( n = 6) or focus groups ( n = 3). Most studies examined state-level policy ( n = 18) and nine studies examined federal-level policy, with some studies looking at multiple levels of government. Included studies focused on the executive and legislative branches with no studies examining the judicial branch.

We examined dissemination based on geographic regions and/or political boundaries (i.e., regions or states). Sixteen of the 27 studies (about 59%) used national samples or multiple states and did not provide geographic-specific results [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 ]. Two studies (about 7%) did not specific the geographic region or state in which the study took place [ 43 , 44 ]. Of the remaining studies, four examined policymaking in the Northeastern United States [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ], four in the Western US [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ], and one in the South [ 53 ]. The geographic regional groups used similar channels to disseminate evidence to policymakers including publications and presentations.

We also analyzed whether dissemination at different levels of government (i.e., local, state, and federal) used unique channels. Six of included studies (about 22%) examined multiple levels of government and did not separate results based on specific levels of government [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 53 ]. One study did not specifically identify the level of government used [ 46 ]. While there is considerable overlap in dissemination channels used at each level of government, there are some unique characteristics.

Five studies (about 18.5%) examined dissemination at the federal level [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ]. At the federal level, dissemination channels tended to be more formal such as congressional committee hearings [ 36 ] and legislative development [ 35 ]. Twelve studies (about 44%) evaluated dissemination at the state level [ 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]. State level dissemination heavily relied on printed materials including from mental health care disparity report cards [ 41 ], policy briefs [ 38 ], and effectiveness reports [ 50 ]. Another common channel was in-person communications such as one-on-one meetings [ 44 ] and presentations to stakeholders [ 51 ]. Three studies (about 11%) focused on local-level government. Dissemination channels at the local level had little consistency across the three studies with channels including public education [ 45 ], reports [ 37 ], and print materials [ 49 ].

Roughly half of studies were atheoretical ( n = 13). Four studies used the Weiss Typology [ 29 , 36 , 54 , 55 ], two studies used the operationalization framework [ 45 , 53 ], and two studies used the advocacy coalition framework [ 53 , 56 ].

Model for dissemination of research

We used the Model for Dissemination of Research to summarize the findings from the included studies into the themes of source, message, audience, and channel (i.e., strategies). We integrated themes from the studies into the Model (see Fig. 3 ).

A conceptual model for dissemination of research to policymakers. The populated conceptual model builds on the Model for Dissemination of Research by organizing findings from the current systematic review to build an understanding of how research is disseminated to policymakers in the United States

The sources of knowledge varied across studies with some studies including multiple sources of social policy information. The most common sources of knowledge included research, as in peer-reviewed literature ( n = 7) [ 30 , 33 , 38 , 42 , 43 , 49 , 54 ], researchers ( n = 5) [ 27 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 56 ], and research broadly defined ( n = 5) [ 36 , 39 , 47 , 48 , 55 ], the government ( n = 11) [ 29 , 36 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 50 , 54 , 56 , 57 ], and organizations ( n = 7) [ 33 , 36 , 46 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 56 ].

The majority of studies focused on health topics ( n = 12) [ 29 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 38 , 41 , 42 , 45 , 47 , 55 , 56 , 58 ] and child and family well-being ( n = 6) [ 27 , 36 , 46 , 49 , 52 , 57 ]. The remaining studies covered the topics of education ( n = 4) [ 39 , 43 , 53 , 54 ], guns [ 56 ], veterans [ 44 ], and general social research ( n = 3) [ 31 , 32 , 48 ]. Multiple studies offered specific recommendations for message framing, suggesting that the packaging of information is as critical as the information itself [ 27 ]. One study piloted multiple styles of policy briefs and found staffers preferred to use and share narrative or story-based briefs while legislators were more likely to use and share statistical, data-based briefs [ 38 ]. This finding was mirrored in two studies that found testimonial or descriptive evidence to be as effective as data-driven research [ 34 , 52 ], particularly in the context of sympathetic populations [ 52 ]. Three studies highlighted the reliance of effective message delivery on the message’s ability to capture audience interest (e.g., what the research means to the policymaker, specifically and if possible, personally) [ 27 , 34 , 41 ]. Finally, two studies emphasized creating a sense of urgency or even shock-value within the message in order to capture policymakers’ interest [ 36 , 57 ].

The audience included executive branch policymakers [ 49 ], administrators ( n = 9) [ 27 , 31 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 43 , 53 , 55 , 57 ], and staff [ 42 ]. Studies which focused on the legislative branch examined legislators ( n = 12) [ 27 , 32 , 36 , 38 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 50 , 52 , 53 , 58 ] and staff ( n = 3) [ 32 , 34 , 36 ]. Three studies examined broadly defined policymakers [ 33 , 54 , 56 ] and generalized staff [ 54 ] without indication for specific branch of government.

Included studies examined a variety of channels with many including multiple channels. Print materials was the most commonly used channel, including reports ( n = 10) [ 27 , 30 , 33 , 41 , 46 , 50 , 53 , 55 , 57 , 58 ] and policy briefs ( n = 3) [ 31 , 34 , 38 ]. Researchers examined in-person meetings and communications as a channel to disseminate research ( n = 9) [ 30 , 32 , 33 , 39 , 44 , 48 , 53 , 56 , 57 ]. Research and research summaries were also studied ( n = 7) [ 30 , 31 , 42 , 47 , 49 , 52 , 54 ]. Both traditional ( n = 6) [ 31 , 33 , 47 , 52 , 53 , 54 ] and social media ( n = 2) [ 47 , 53 ] were examined as channels to disseminate research to policymakers. Other channels include conferences and presentations ( n = 4) [ 33 , 34 , 49 , 57 ], electronic communication ( n = 2) [ 27 , 57 ], online resources ( n = 3) [ 34 , 49 , 58 ], and personal testimony ( n =2) [ 42 , 52 ].

Effectiveness and lessons learned

The majority of studies employed qualitative research methods (e.g., interviews, case studies, focus groups) to evaluate the impact of scientific research on domestic social policy. Our review of the literature also identified nine quantitative and mixed-methods studies [ 31 , 32 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 49 , 58 ]. We identified a series of cross-cutting dissemination strategies for engaging policymakers including recommendations for and barriers to research-to-policy (see Table 2 ).

Start early

Four studies highlighted the importance for early and ongoing engagement with policymakers throughout the research process in order to maximize interest and applicability. Researchers are encouraged to take the initiative to contact policymakers as early as possible in the research process. Many policymakers may be interested in accessing and using research but uncertain who or how to make connections in the academic or research community [ 27 ]. Involving policymakers when designing projects and framing initial research questions increases the likelihood that key policy stakeholders will remain invested in the work by allowing their individual research interests to shine [ 34 , 41 ]. Early engagement also ensures that research products (e.g., reports, policy briefs, factsheets) will have strategic usefulness for policymakers [ 30 ].

Drum up support

In addition to early policymaker engagement, three studies highlighted the need for researchers to garner outside support for their work, ideally involving a broad pool of experts and cultivating a broader coalition of supporters than typical academic endeavors [ 47 ]. Often, policymakers appear unwilling or uninterested in considering the application of evidence to their work [ 45 , 53 ]; when researchers can demonstrate the value and relevance of their work [ 58 ], policymakers may be more likely to engage.

Use research evidence “champions” or “brokers”

A common strategy for garnering support (as recommended above) is the use of evidence champions or brokers ; these are intermediary individuals or organizations who connect research suppliers (e.g., individual researchers, academic institutions) to research demand (e.g., policymakers) [ 53 ]. These champions can broker important connections; however, researchers and policymakers alike must remember that these intermediaries are not neutral carriers of information, and may spin research in support of personal agendas [ 45 , 52 , 53 ]. Individual biases may also present a barrier in research-to-policy translation, as individuals or organizations are empowered to select the “best” research evidence to share with policymakers [ 29 ]. One study found that nearly half of state policymakers named professional associations as trusted sources for research information, specifically because the organization is perceived not to have a stake in the final policy outcome [ 58 ].

Two studies specifically addressed the role of intermediary organizations or brokers in the translation of research evidence to policy. Hopkins et al. [ 39 ] explored the exchange of research evidence among state education agency (SEA) leaders, while Massell et al. [ 43 ] examined more broadly the origins of research evidence use in three SEAs. Both studies found that external brokers played a role in connecting SEA policymakers to relevant research, as well as in the conceptualization and development of policy.

Focus on context

Multiple studies stressed the importance of research evidence being contextually relevant to the specific policy audience [ 29 , 54 , 55 , 57 ]. For some policymakers, the needs and interests of local constituents will drive the use of research and the specifics of the policy agenda; for others, discussions that integrate research evidence into the broader sociopolitical context will be more effective [ 45 ]. For state- and local-level policymakers, policies may be most effective when based on the evidence-based understanding of local stakeholders, rather than imposed from the federal level without local contextual details [ 29 ].

Ideology of external advisors and brokers (as discussed above) and policymakers’ own personal beliefs and experiences [ 54 ] and the prevailing political ideology of a particular geographic region [ 55 ] are critical components of context. Ideological beliefs, often deeply held and personal, may create a barrier between researchers and policymakers [ 41 ], though differentiating ideology from other factors that affect individual position-taking is difficult in most situations [ 44 ]. McGinty et al. [ 56 ] suggest that in polarized contexts involving strong ideological beliefs, research may add legitimacy to a particular viewpoint, though as with brokers, that research is likely to be carefully curated to support the desired message. Purtle et al. [ 55 ] concur, reporting that some county health officials were wary of the potential to spin research findings to make a case for certain programs over others and noted the need to avoid the challenge of distorting evidence. Two studies recommend positional neutrality as a researcher’s best approach to handling potential ideological differences, suggesting that presenting research findings as simple fact, rather than making specific recommendations for action, may help avoid conflict and also help researchers gain credibility across the ideological spectrum [ 27 , 50 ].

Make research products timely, relevant, and accessible

As with all research endeavors, timeliness and relevance are paramount. However, the typical timeline for academic research (years) is often too long for policymakers whose window for championing a policy action is much shorter (weeks or months) [ 27 , 52 ]. A frequently reported barrier in research-to-policy translation is the complexity of research and concerns about the quality of research evidence [ 29 , 41 , 56 ]; one strategy for combating this concern is the use of clear, careful language [ 27 ], and tailored, audience-specific products that meet the needs of a diverse population of end users [ 27 , 34 , 58 ]. Research that is presented in commonly used, accessible formats (e.g., briefs, factsheets, videos) [ 48 ] may also be more effective, though one study found that use of these formats was dependent on job type, with legislators and staffers preferring different formats [ 58 ].

Multiple studies engaged with policymakers in an effort to determine how they receive research evidence and what strategies or formats are most desirable or effective [ 38 ]. After piloting four different styles of policy briefs (on the same research topic) with state-level policymakers, Brownson et al. [ 38 ] found that while all styles of brief were considered understandable and credible, opinions on the usefulness of the brief varied by the style of the brief and by the level of policymaker (e.g., legislative staff, legislators, and executive branch administrators). These findings suggest that targeted, audience-specific research evidence materials may be more likely to be used by policymakers than generic research evidence. One study explored the usefulness of electronic vs. printed research material and again found differences by type of policymaker—legislators were more likely to read hard copy printed material, while staffers gave higher ratings to online content. Not surprisingly, the age of the policymaker also played a role in the choice to access electronic or printed material, with younger policymakers much more likely to read electronic copy than were their older peers [ 58 ].

A study on state policymakers’ perceptions of comparative effectiveness research (CER) found that the most useful research is that which is consistent and specific to the needs of the policymakers [ 42 ]. The same study identified related barriers to the use of CER in policy decision-making, citing a lack of relevant high quality or conclusive research [ 42 ].

Finally, two studies described pilot projects focused on the delivery of research evidence directly to policymakers. The first cultivated researchers’ capacity to accelerate the translation of research evidence into useable knowledge for policymakers through a rapid response researcher network [ 32 ]. This model was shown to be effective for both researchers (in mobilizing) and policymakers (in eliciting requests for research evidence to bolster a policy conversation or debate) [ 32 ]. The second implementation study reported on a field experiment in which state legislators randomly received relevant research about pending policy proposals [ 44 ]. Findings from this study suggest that having relevant research information increases policymakers’ co-sponsorship of proposals by 60% and highlights the importance of research access in the policy process [ 44 ].

Know the players and the process

Policymakers are as much experts in their arena as researchers are in their academic fields. In order to build lasting working relationships with a target policymaking audience and maximize the relevance of research products for policy work, researchers must first understand the policy process [ 27 , 30 , 34 ]. One study examined the role of researchers themselves in disseminating findings to policymakers and identified individual- and organizational-level facilitators and barriers to the process [ 31 ]. Researchers’ familiarity with the policy process, the relevance of policy dissemination to individual programs of research, and the expectation of dissemination (from higher institutional or funding bodies) facilitated the research-to-policy exchange, while lack of familiarity with effective dissemination strategies and lack of financial and institutional support for dissemination emerged as primary barriers in the research-to-policy exchange [ 31 ].

Public policy, whether legislative, executive, or judicial, affects all areas of daily life in both obvious and subtle ways. The policy process (i.e., the steps from an idea to policy enactment) does not exist in a vacuum; it is influenced by many factors, including public opinion [ 59 , 60 ], special interest groups [ 61 ], personal narratives [ 62 ], expressed needs of constituents [ 1 ], the media [ 63 , 64 , 65 ], and corporations [ 66 , 67 ]. Research may also play a role in shaping policy and has the potential to add objectivity and evidence to these other forces [ 1 , 2 , 68 ]. The current study synthesizes existing knowledge to understand dissemination strategies of social policy research to policymakers in the United States.

Many channels exist to disseminate evidence to policymakers, with the most common being print materials (i.e., reports and policy briefs). This finding is surprising in our current digital age, as print materials are necessarily time-bound and rapidly evolving technology has created more channels (e.g., social media, videos) which may be preferred by policymakers. This shift creates an opportunity to optimize the content of print materials to disseminate in new mediums; it also offers a chance for authors to improve the accessibility of their work for broader audiences (e.g., via more visual presentation formats) [ 15 , 69 , 70 , 71 ].

Our review found strategies to increase effectiveness of research dissemination to policymakers includes starting early, drumming-up support, using champions and brokers, understanding the context, ensuring timeliness, relevance, and accessibility of research products, and knowing the players and the process. These themes align with existing knowledge about policymaker preferences including face-to-face engagement [ 72 , 73 ], contextual considerations (e.g., timeliness and budget) [ 2 , 72 ], and existing barriers and facilitators to research evidence use [ 4 , 5 ]. Our study adds to what we already know about policymakers’ desire for research evidence and their varying preferences as to the context and form of that knowledge [ 2 , 72 , 74 ] and supports existing efforts to bridge the gap between researchers and policymakers.

Many of the barriers and facilitators to research dissemination that we identified in this review mirror those cited by policymakers as barriers and facilitators to evidence use; this overlap reasonably suggests that efforts to expand research dissemination may improve the other. Particularly relevant lessons from the evidence use literature that also emerged from our review include emphasis on the benefit of building personal relationships between researchers and policymakers [ 5 , 75 , 76 ], narrowing the perceived gap between the two groups [ 77 , 78 ], and changing the culture of decision making to increase appreciation for the value of research in policy development [ 5 , 75 , 76 , 77 ]. Considering the multiple pathways through which research evidence is used in policy, from providing direct evidence of a program’s effectiveness to informing or orienting policy makers about relevant issues [ 23 ], these shared lessons around barriers and facilitators may better inform researchers, policymakers, and staff as to best practices for future communication and collaboration.

Our findings also highlight several unique elements of the US policy landscape, wherein significant power is reserved from the federal-level and afforded to state-level government. In some states, this power is further distributed to county and local governments. This system creates major variation across the country in both policy decisions and in resource availability for social policy implementation. Despite our relatively unique government structure, however, many of the effective strategies for dissemination we identified mirror strategies found in other countries [ 79 , 80 ].

Studies that focused on a specific level of government had some unique characteristics such as formality and reliance on print materials. For example, federal dissemination relied more heavily on formal legislative testimony while state level material relied on written policy materials (e.g., policy briefs, report cards). However, these results are limited by small sample sizes and limited evidence about effectiveness.

A wide range of contextual variables may influence policy dissemination in the US at different levels of government. In the federal legislative context alone, multiple committees and subcommittees of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate may exercise some control over programs and policies related to a single social policy issue (e.g., child and family services) [ 81 ]. At the federal level, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides non-partisan research support to legislators in multiple formats including reports on major policy issues, expert testimony, and responses to individual inquiries; the Domestic Social Policy Division offers Congress interdisciplinary research and analysis on social policy issues [ 82 ]. While there may be fewer decision-makers for each issue on the state level, policymaking is further complicated by the extensive rules and reporting requirements attached to state use of federal funding as well as competing priorities or needs at the local level within each state [ 83 , 84 ]. Another dissemination influence may include geographic proximity; for example, geographical proximity may increase the likelihood of university-industry partnerships [ 85 ].

Infrastructure differences may also represent important differences between the US social policy context and that of other developed nations. Each country has a distinct and perhaps unique policy context given available resources, political rules and regulations, and priorities. While models for infrastructure and dissemination interventions may be shared across policy contexts, it may be difficult to directly compare dissemination strategies in one country with dissemination strategies in another country.

Several examples across western countries contribute to a stronger nexus between research evidence and the policy-making process. In the United States, the Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars ( www.wisfamilyimpact.org ) are an example of long-standing initiatives that provide the opportunity for researchers and policymakers to come together to discuss unbiased policy-relevant evidence [ 86 ]. As exemplified by Friese and Bogenschneider [ 27 ], these forums continue to be perceived as objective, relevant, and useful by policymakers and have succeeded at bringing attention to social policy [ 86 ]. Researchers and policymakers in Canada have sought to bridge the research-to-policy gap. For example, the Canadian Foundation for Healthcare Improvement (formerly the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation), funded by the Canadian federal government, brings together researchers and policymakers early and throughout the research development process to discuss, prioritize, and evaluate opportunities for research and dissemination [ 79 ]. In the UK, infrastructure at the national level includes the National Institute for Health Research Policy Research Programme, which funds health research with the explicit goal of informing national policy decisions in health and social care [ 87 ]. These efforts include open calls for research proposals as well as 15 dedicated Policy Research Units located at leading academic institutions around the country. Another resource is the EPPI-Centre at University College London, which provides policymakers support for finding and using research to inform policy decisions through its Research Advisory Service. This allows researchers to work alongside policymakers to reach their goals in addressing educational needs with evidence-informed policy [ 80 ].

Limitations

The current study has several limitations—these illustrate opportunities for future research. First, we attempted to cast a wide net when searching for studies which examined the influence of research on social policy by including a broad search of the peer-reviewed literature, think tanks, and content experts. However, it is possible we missed some studies which examine how research influences policy. Second, we provide a rationale for focusing on US studies and that our findings may not be generalizable to other countries. Third, we were unable to assess the risk of bias for individual studies as current standards note difficulties in assessing quality and bias in qualitative research [ 88 ]. Fourth, many studies examined multiple channels or strategies for how research influences policy, so the parsing of singular strategies (e.g., policy brief, in-person meeting) as an effective approach should be interpreted with caution. Additional investigation is needed to explore and test causal pathways in how these channels can best influence social policy. Fifth, the majority of studies did not use any theory or framework as a foundation or guide for exploration. This gap may indicate a space to use frameworks such as the Model for Dissemination of Research to guide future research. Finally, the dearth of mixed-methods studies that systematically evaluate the impact of research evidence on domestic social policy (this review identified only 3) presents an opportunity for future work in this field to integrate quantitative and qualitative methodologies.

One significant challenge to increasing the rigor in dissemination research studies is the difficulty in choosing and then measuring an outcome. Many of the studies included in this review are either case studies or descriptive, making it difficult to determine what, if any, impact the given research had on policy. Bogenschneider and Corbett discuss this at length as one of the primary challenges to furthering this research [ 72 ], imploring researchers not to focus solely on the outcome of whether or not a piece or legislation passes but rather to examine whether research influenced one of the proposed policy options [ 72 ]. However, this information can be difficult both to operationalize and to collect. That said, some researchers have already begun to think beyond the passage of legislation, as evidenced by Zelizer [ 44 ] who examined bill co-sponsorship rather than passage. A recent review of health policy implementation measurement found that validated quantitative measures are underutilized and recommends further development and testing of such measures [ 89 ]. Difficulties in identifying robust outcomes and high-quality scales to operationalize them present opportunities for additional exploration in this area.

Dissemination and implementation are often described together; not surprisingly, is overlap in effective strategies for each. The current review identified six dissemination strategies and described their reported effectiveness, while the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) Project identified 73 implementation strategies [ 90 ]. One such similarity is obvious: the dissemination strategy of using champions and brokers mirrors the ERIC implementation strategy of identifying and preparing champions. The difference between the number of implementation strategies and dissemination strategies is striking and highlights the gap in research. Future work should further explore the degree to which dissemination strategies and implementation strategies either overlap or are distinct.

Finally, the dissemination of research to policymakers may raise certain ethical issues. It is imperative for researchers to critically assess when and how to disseminate research findings to policymakers, keeping in mind that promoting a specific policy agenda may result in a perceived or real loss of objectivity [ 91 ]. Syntheses of policy-relevant evidence can be useful, particularly when researchers work in partnership with non-governmental organizations to inform the policy process.

We summarize strategies and illuminate potential barriers to the research-to-policy dissemination process. Key findings are drawn from multiple disciplines and suggest that lessons learned may cut across both research topics and levels of government. The most frequently referenced channel for dissemination to policymakers was print materials, with personal communication (including both in-person and electronic meetings and individual communications) a close second. Corresponding strategies for effective dissemination to policymakers included starting early, drumming-up support, using champions and brokers, understanding the context, ensuring timeliness, relevance, and accessibility of research products, and knowing the players and the process. A shared feature of these strategies is the distillation of complex research findings into accessible pieces of relevant information that can then be delivered via multiple avenues.

Interdisciplinary collaboration is a common practice in scientific research [ 92 ]. Our findings provide leads on how to more effectively to engage with policymakers, leading to a greater likelihood of translating research evidence into policy action. Engaging policymakers early as contributing members of the research team, maintaining communication during the research process, and presenting relevant findings in a clear, concise manner may empower both researchers and policymakers to further apply scientific evidence to improve social policy in the United States.

Availability of data and materials

Raw search results, citations, and abstracts available upon request.

Abbreviations

United States

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Comparative Effectiveness Research

Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change

Dodson EA, Geary NA, Brownson RC. State legislators’ sources and use of information: bridging the gap between research and policy. Health Educ Res. 2015;30:840–8.

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Purtle J, Dodson EA, Nelson K, Meisel ZF, Brownson RC. Legislators’ sources of behavioral Health research and preferences for dissemination: variations by political party. Psychiatr Serv. 2018; appi.ps.201800153.

Purtle J, Peters R, Brownson RC. A review of policy dissemination and implementation research funded by the National Institutes of Health, 2007-2014. Implement Sci. 2016;11.

Oliver K, Innvar S, Lorenc T, Woodman J, Thomas J. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:2.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Innvær S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7:239–44.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

El-Jardali F, Lavis JN, Ataya N, Jamal D. Use of health systems and policy research evidence in the health policymaking in eastern Mediterranean countries: views and practices of researchers. Implement Sci IS. 2012;7:2.

Campbell DM, Redman S, Rychentnik L, Cooke M, Zwi AB, Jorm L. Increasing the use of evidence in health policy: practice and views of policy makers and researchers. Aust N Z Health Policy CSIRO. 2009;6.

Dean H. Social Policy. Cambridge: Polity; 2012.

Google Scholar

Gilbert N, Terrell P. Dimensions of social welfare policy. 8th ed. Boston: Pearson; 2012.

Marshall TH. Citizenship and social class. Cambridge; 1950.

Shannon CE. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J. 1948;27:379–423.

Article Google Scholar

Weaver W, Shannon CE. The mathematical theory of communication. Champaign: University of Illinois Press; 1963.

McGuire W. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. Vol. 3. Reading: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co; 1969.

McGuire WJ, Rice R, Atkin C. Input and output variables currently promising for constructing persuasive communications. Public Commun Campaigns. 2001;3:22–48.

Brownson RC, Eyler AA, Harris JK, Moore JB, Tabak RG. Getting the Word Out: New Approaches for Disseminating Public Health Science. J Public Health Manag Pract JPHMP. 2018;24:102–11.

Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition: Simon and Schuster; 2003.

Kotler P, Zaltman G. Social marketing: an approach to planned social change. J Mark. 1971;35:3–12.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Best A, Holmes B. Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods. Evid Policy J Res Debate Pract Policy Press. 2010;6:145–59.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.

Political party - Two-party systems. Encycl. Br. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 10]. Available from: https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-party .

Mahoney C. Why lobbying in America is different [Internet]. POLITICO. 2009 [cited 2020 Aug 10]. Available from: https://www.politico.eu/article/why-lobbying-in-america-is-different/ .

Tseng V, Coburn C. Using evidence in the US. What Works Evid-Inf Policy Pract. Bristol: Policy Press; 2019. p. 351–68.

Stern MJ. Social Policy: History (1950–1980). Encycl Soc Work. 2013; [cited 2020 Apr 17]. Available from: https://oxfordre.com/socialwork/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.001.0001/acrefore-9780199975839-e-610 .

Ashcraft LE, Asato M, Houtrow AJ, Kavalieratos D, Miller E, Ray KN. Parent empowerment in pediatric healthcare settings: A systematic review of observational studies. Patient Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2019;12:199–212.

Jacobs LA, Ashcraft LE, Sewall CJR, Folb BL, Mair C. Ecologies of juvenile reoffending: a systematic review of risk factors. J Crim Just. 2020;66:101638.

Friese B, Bogenschneider K. The voice of experience: how social scientists communicate family research to policymakers. Fam Relat. 2009;58:229–43.

Nelson JW, Scammell MK, Altman RG, Webster TF, Ozonoff DM. A new spin on research translation: the Boston Consensus Conference on Human Biomonitoring. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117:495–9.

Weiss CH, Murphy-Graham E, Petrosino A, Gandhi AG. The fairy godmother—nd her warts. Am J Eval. 2008;29:29–47.

Meisel ZF, Mitchell J, Polsky D, Boualam N, McGeoch E, Weiner J, et al. Strengthening partnerships between substance use researchers and policy makers to take advantage of a window of opportunity. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2019;14:12.

McVay AB, Stamatakis KA, Jacobs JA, Tabak RG, Brownson RC. The role of researchers in disseminating evidence to public health practice settings: a cross-sectional study. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14:1–9.

Crowley M, Scott JTB, Fishbein D. Translating prevention research for evidence-based policymaking: results from the research-to-policy collaboration pilot. Prev Sci. 2018;19:260–70.

Lane JP, Rogers JD. Engaging national organizations for knowledge translation: Comparative case studies in knowledge value mapping. Implement Sci. 2011;6.

McBride T, Coburn A, MacKinney C, Mueller K, Slifkin R, Wakefield M. Bridging health research and policy: effective dissemination strategies. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008;14:150–4.

McGinty EE, Siddiqi S, Linden S, Horwitz J, Frattaroli S. Improving the use of evidence in public health policy development, enactment and implementation: a multiple-case study. Health Educ Res. 2019;34:129–44.

Yanovitzky I, Weber M. Analysing use of evidence in public policymaking processes: a theory-grounded content analysis methodology. 2019 [cited 2019 May 8]. Available from: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/ep/pre-prints/content-ppevidpold1700095 .

Purtle J, Lê-Scherban F, Wang XI, Shattuck PT, Proctor EK, Brownson RC. State Legislators’ Support for Behavioral Health Parity Laws: The Influence of Mutable and Fixed Factors at Multiple Levels. Milbank Q. 2019;97:1200–32.

Article PubMed Central Google Scholar

Brownson RC, Dodson EA, Stamatakis KA, Casey CM, Elliott MB, Luke DA, et al. Communicating evidence-based information on cancer prevention to state-level policy makers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:306–16.

Hopkins M, Wiley KE, Penuel WR, Farrell CC. Brokering research in science education policy implementation: the case of a professional association. Evid Policy. 2018;14:459–76.

Sorian R, Baugh T. Power of information: closing the gap between research and policy. Health Aff (Millwood). 2002;21:264–73.

Valentine A, DeAngelo D, Alegria M, Cook BL. Translating disparities research to policy: a qualitative study of state mental health policymakers’ perceptions of mental health care disparities report cards. Psychol Serv. 2014;11:377–87.

Weissman JS, Westrich K, Hargraves JL, Pearson SD, Dubois R, Emond S, et al. Translating comparative effectiveness research into Medicaid payment policy: views from medical and pharmacy directors. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;4:79–88.

Massell D, Goertz ME, Barnes CA. State education agencies’ acquisition and use of research knowledge for school improvement. Peabody J Educ. 2012;87:609–26.

Zelizer A. How Responsive Are Legislators to Policy Information? Evidence from a field experiment in a state legislature. Legis Stud Q. 2018;43:595–618.

Allen ST, Ruiz MS, O’Rourke A. The evidence does not speak for itself: The role of research evidence in shaping policy change for the implementation of publicly funded syringe exchange programs in three US cities. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26:688–95.

Brim OG Jr, Dustan J, Brim OG Jr. Translating research into policy for children: the private foundation experience. Am Psychol. 1983;38:85–90.

Austin SB, Yu K, Tran A, Mayer B. Research-to-policy translation for prevention of disordered weight and shape control behaviors: a case example targeting dietary supplements sold for weight loss and muscle building. Eat Behav. 2017;25:9–14.

Bumbarger B, Campbell E. A state agency-university partnership for translational research and the dissemination of evidence-based prevention and intervention. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2012;39:268–77.

Garcia AR, Kim M, Palinkas LA, Snowden L, Landsverk J. Socio-contextual determinants of research evidence use in public-youth systems of care. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2016;43:569–78.

Coffman JM, Hong M-K, Aubry WM, Luft HS, Yelin E. Translating medical effectiveness research into policy: lessons from the California health benefits review program. Milbank Q. 2009;87:863–902.

Jamieson M, Bodonyi JM. Data-driven child welfare policy and practice in the next century. Child Welfare. 1999;78:15–30.

Mosley JE, Courtney ME. Partnership and the politics of care: advocates’ role in passing and implementing California’s law to extend foster care: Chapin Hall Center for Children; 2012.

Jabbar H, Goel La Londe P, Debray E, Scott J, Lubienski C. How Policymakers Define ‘Evidence’: The Politics of Research Use in New Orleans. Policy Futur Educ. 2015;12:286–303.

Nelson SR, Leffler JC, Hansen BA. Toward a research agenda for understanding and improving the use of research evidence. Northwest Reg Educ Lab NWREL. 2009.

Purtle J, Peters R, Kolker J, Diez Roux AV. Uses of population health rankings in local policy contexts: A multisite case study. Med Care Res Rev. 2019;76:478–96.

McGinty B, Siddiqi S, Linden S. Academic research-policy translation strategies to improve the use of evidence in health policy development, enactment and implementation: a 3-part embedded case study. Implement Sci. 2018;13.

Jamieson M, Bodonyi JM. Data-driven child welfare policy and practice in the next century. Fam Foster Care Century. 2001;13.

Sorian R, Baugh T. Power of information: closing the gap between research and policy. Health Aff (Millwood). Health Aff. 2002;21:264–73.

Burstein P. The impact of public opinion on public policy: a review and an agenda. Polit Res Q. 2003;56:29–40.

Pacheco J, Maltby E. The role of public opinion—does it influence the diffusion of ACA decisions? J Health Polit Policy Law. 2017;42:309–40.

Wolton S. Lobbying, Inside and Out: How special interest groups influence policy choices. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network; 2017 Mar. Report No.: ID 2190685. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2190685 .

Stamatakis KA, McBride TD, Brownson RC. Communicating prevention messages to policy makers: the role of stories in promoting physical activity. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7:S99–107.

Otten AL. The influence of the mass media on health policy. Health Aff (Millwood). Health Aff. 1992;11:111–8.

Article CAS Google Scholar

Robinson P. Theorizing the influence of media on world politics: models of media influence on foreign policy. Eur J Commun. 2001;16:523–44.

Shanahan EA, McBeth MK, Hathaway PL. Narrative policy framework: the influence of media policy narratives on public opinion. Polit Policy. 2011;39:373–400.

Salamon LM, Siegfried JJ. Economic power and political influence: the impact of industry structure on public policy. Am Polit Sci Rev. 1977;71:1026–43.

Shelley D, Ogedegbe G, Elbel B. Same strategy different industry: corporate influence on public policy. Am J Public Health. 2014;104:e9–11.

Hird JA. Policy Analysis for What? The effectiveness of nonpartisan policy research organizations. Policy Stud J. 2005;33:83–105.

Trost MJ, Webber EC, Wilson KM. Getting the word out: disseminating scholarly work in the technology age. Acad Pediatr. 2017;17:223–4.

Kapp JM, Hensel B, Schnoring KT. Is Twitter a forum for disseminating research to health policy makers? Ann Epidemiol. 2015;25:883–7.

Dodson EA, Eyler AA, Chalifour S, Wintrode CG. A review of obesity-themed policy briefs. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43:S143–8.

Bogenschneider K, Corbett TJ. Evidence-based policymaking: Insights from policy-minded researchers and research-minded policymakers: Routledge; 2011.

Mitton C, Adair CE, Mckenzie E, Patten SB, Perry BW. Knowledge transfer and exchange: review and synthesis of the literature. Milbank Q. 2007;85:729–68.

Purtle J, Lê-Scherban F, Shattuck P, Proctor EK, Brownson RC. An audience research study to disseminate evidence about comprehensive state mental health parity legislation to US State policymakers: protocol. Implement Sci. 2017;12:1–13.

Van der Arend J. Bridging the research/policy gap: policy officials’ perspectives on the barriers and facilitators to effective links between academic and policy worlds. Policy Stud. 2014;35:611–30.

Langer L, Tripney J, Gough DA. The science of using science: researching the use of research evidence in decision-making: UCL Institute of Education, EPPI-Centre; 2016.

Orton L, Lloyd-Williams F, Taylor-Robinson D, O’Flaherty M, Capewell S. The use of research evidence in public health decision making processes: systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6:e21704.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Hennink M, Stephenson R. Using research to inform health policy: barriers and strategies in developing countries. J Health Commun. 2005;10:163–80.

Lomas J. Essay: Using ‘Linkage And Exchange’ To move research into policy at a Canadian Foundation. Health Aff (Millwood). Health Aff. 2000;19:236–40.

EPPI-Centre. Research Advisory Service. 2019 [cited 2020 Aug 4]. Available from: https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=3421 .

Kerner JF, Hall KL. Research dissemination and diffusion: translation within science and society. Res Soc Work Pract. 2009;19:519–30.

Library of Congress. About CRS - congressional research service (Library of Congress). 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 26]. Available from: https://www.loc.gov/crsinfo/about/ .

Edwards C. Complexity in State Government. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 31]. Available from: https://www.cato.org/blog/complexity-state-government .

Urban Institute. State and Local Expenditures [Internet]. Urban Inst. 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 25]. Available from: https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/state-and-local-expenditures .

D’Este P, Guy F, Iammarino S. Shaping the formation of university–industry research collaborations: what type of proximity does really matter? J Econ Geogr. 2013;13:537–58.

Owen JW, Larson AM. Researcher-policymaker partnerships: Strategies for launching and sustaining successful collaborations: Routledge; 2017.

National Institute for Health Research. Policy research. 2020 [cited 2020 Sep 4]. Available from: https://www.nihr.ac.uk/explore-nihr/funding-programmes/policy-research.htm .

Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2011 [cited 2018 Sep 20]. Available from: /handbook.

Allen P, Pilar M, Walsh-Baily C, Hooley C, Mazzucca S, Lewis C, et al. Quantitative measures of health policy implementation determinants and outcomes: a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2020.

Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21.

Brownson RC, Hartge P, Samet JM, Ness RB. From epidemiology to policy: toward more effective practice. Ann Epidemiol. 2010;20:409.

Carroll L, Ali MK, Cuff P, Huffman MD, Kelly BB, Kishore SP, et al. Envisioning a transdisciplinary university. J Law Med Ethics. 2014;42:17–25.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not reflect those of the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the National Institutes of Health.

LEA is supported by a pre-doctoral Clinical and Translational Science Fellowship (NIH TL1 TR001858 (PI: Kraemer)). DAQ is supported by a postdoctoral fellowship through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of Academic Affiliations and the Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion at the VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System. RCB is supported by the National Cancer Institute (P50CA244431) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U48DP006395). The funding entities had no role in the development, data collection, analysis, reporting, or publication of this work. Article processing charges for this article were fully paid by the University Library System, University of Pittsburgh.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Pittsburgh School of Social Work, 2117 Cathedral of Learning, 4200 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA

Laura Ellen Ashcraft

Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion (CHERP), VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System, University Drive C, Building 30, Pittsburgh, PA, 15240, USA

Deirdre A. Quinn

Prevention Research Center, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1196, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA

Ross C. Brownson

Department of Surgery, Division of Public Health Sciences, and Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Review methodology: LEA, DAQ, RCB; eligibility criteria: LEA, DAQ, RCB; search strings and terms: LEA, DAQ; abstract screening: LEA, DAQ; full text screening: LEA, DAQ; pilot extraction: LEA, DAQ; data extraction: LEA, DAQ; data aggregation: LEA, DAQ; writing: LEA, DAQ; editing: LEA, DAQ, RCB. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura Ellen Ashcraft .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare they have no conflicting interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Additional file 1..

PRISMA Checklist.

Additional File 2.

Search Strategy.

Additional File 3.

Data Abstraction Form.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ashcraft, L.E., Quinn, D.A. & Brownson, R.C. Strategies for effective dissemination of research to United States policymakers: a systematic review. Implementation Sci 15 , 89 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01046-3

Download citation

Received : 18 May 2020

Accepted : 14 September 2020

Published : 15 October 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01046-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Dissemination
Dissemination science
Social policy
Public policy

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: [email protected]

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Dear Colleague Letter: Sunsetting the NSF-NIST Disaster Resilience Research Grants (DRRG) Funding Opportunity

June 17, 2024

Dear Colleagues:

The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announce the sunset of the joint NSF-NIST Disaster Resilience Research Grants (DRRG) program ( https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/disaster-resilience-research-grants-drrg ).

Since June 2020, DRRG has invested $14.7 million in 38 projects with high potential to yield new science-based insights that can be used to improve planning, policy, decisions, design, codes, and standards. Both agencies are grateful to the many dedicated scholars who offered proposals to help the nation meet this need.

DRRG cast a wide net for the best research ideas with potential for resilience advances. As a result, DRRG projects addressed a wide range of hazards from wildland-urban interface fires, derechos and other windstorms, landslides, earthquakes, floods, and more; they examined hazards and impacts at levels ranging from individual structures, infrastructure entities and systems, communities; and they improved understanding of underlying hazard phenomenology. Also, and importantly, many students have had the opportunity to work at the cutting edge of disaster and resilience science as part of DRRG projects.

The annual DRRG symposium, where recipients present annual progress and findings from DRRG-funded research, has attracted over 600 attendees each year. DRRG symposia will still happen in 2024, 2025, and 2026 to promote information exchange and dissemination of new knowledge among the many stakeholders throughout the disaster resilience community. NIST has archived past symposia and will post logistics for future symposia on the same website.

Resilience to natural hazards remains a high priority for both NSF and NIST. NSF strongly encourages researchers to continue to submit proposals for fundamental research that could yield insights useful to advance natural disaster resilience in significant ways. Every NSF proposal is evaluated for important potential contributions to Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts, and improving the nation’s resilience to natural hazards is recognized as a significant broader impact to be considered during review. NSF investment relies upon the submission of high-quality proposals and the availability of appropriated funds.

NSF offers a broad spectrum of funding opportunities relevant to resilience through Standing Programs, Dear Colleague Letters, and Program Solicitations (see below). The Program Directors from these programs encourage written inquiries from potential proposers, to check if their project might be a good fit.

Relevant Standing Programs Include:

Confronting Hazards, Impacts and Risks for a Resilient Planet (CHIRRP) https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/confronting-hazards-impacts-risks-resilient-planet
Civil Infrastructure Systems (CIS) https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/civil-infrastructure-systems-cis
Combustion and Fire Systems (CFS) https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/combustion-fire-systems-cfs
Decision, Risk, and Management Sciences (DRMS) https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/decision-risk-management-sciences-drms
Energy, Power, Control, and Networks (EPCN) https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/energy-power-control-networks-epcn
Engineering for Civil Infrastructure (ECI) https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/engineering-civil-infrastructure-eci
Human-Environment and Geographical Sciences (HEGS) https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/human-environment-geographical-sciences-program-0
Humans, Disasters, and the Built Environment (HDBE) https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/humans-disasters-built-environment-hdbe

Relevant Dear Colleague Letters and Program Solicitations include:

Civil Infrastructure Research for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation (CLIMA) https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2023/nsf23079/nsf23079.jsp
Smart and Connected Communities (S&CC) https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/smart-connected-communities-scc

NSF and NIST program officers will offer an information webinar related to this DCL at noon EDT, Tuesday, July 9 . A link for registration is available on the DRRG webpage . The webinar will also be archived there.

Susan S. Margulies Assistant Director, Directorate for Engineering (ENG)

Download PDF
Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
Permissions

Dispensing of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists to Adolescents and Young Adults, 2020-2023

1 Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor
2 Department of Pediatrics, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
3 Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor
4 Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) were approved for type 2 diabetes in 2005 and for weight management in 2014. 1 Interest in these drugs has surged, spurred partly by the approval of semaglutide for weight management in 2021. 1

Assessing GLP-1RA dispensing to adolescents (aged 12-17 years) and young adults (aged 18-25 years) is important given the absence of data regarding the health effects of long-term use 2 and the long time horizon over which costs of GLP-1RA use could accrue. This study assessed GLP-1RA dispensing nationally during 2020 to 2023 to adolescents and young adults.

Manage citations:

Artificial Intelligence Resource Center

Cardiology in JAMA : Read the Latest

Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!

Others Also Liked

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

Academic Medicine
Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
Allergy and Clinical Immunology
American Indian or Alaska Natives
Anesthesiology
Anticoagulation
Art and Images in Psychiatry
Artificial Intelligence
Assisted Reproduction
Bleeding and Transfusion
Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
Climate and Health
Climate Change
Clinical Challenge
Clinical Decision Support
Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Consensus Statements
Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Critical Care Medicine
Cultural Competency
Dental Medicine
Dermatology
Diabetes and Endocrinology
Diagnostic Test Interpretation
Drug Development
Electronic Health Records
Emergency Medicine
End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
Environmental Health
Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
Facial Plastic Surgery
Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Genetics and Genomics
Genomics and Precision Health
Global Health
Guide to Statistics and Methods
Hair Disorders
Health Care Delivery Models
Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
Health Care Quality
Health Care Reform
Health Care Safety
Health Care Workforce
Health Disparities
Health Inequities
Health Policy
Health Systems Science
History of Medicine
Hypertension
Images in Neurology
Implementation Science
Infectious Diseases
Innovations in Health Care Delivery
JAMA Infographic
Law and Medicine
Leading Change
Less is More
LGBTQIA Medicine
Lifestyle Behaviors
Medical Coding
Medical Devices and Equipment
Medical Education
Medical Education and Training
Medical Journals and Publishing
Mobile Health and Telemedicine
Narrative Medicine
Neuroscience and Psychiatry
Notable Notes
Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Occupational Health
Ophthalmology
Orthopedics
Otolaryngology
Pain Medicine
Palliative Care
Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
Patient Care
Patient Information
Performance Improvement
Performance Measures
Perioperative Care and Consultation
Pharmacoeconomics
Pharmacoepidemiology
Pharmacogenetics
Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Physical Therapy
Physician Leadership
Population Health
Primary Care
Professional Well-being
Professionalism
Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
Public Health
Pulmonary Medicine
Regulatory Agencies
Reproductive Health
Research, Methods, Statistics
Resuscitation
Rheumatology
Risk Management
Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
Shared Decision Making and Communication
Sleep Medicine
Sports Medicine
Stem Cell Transplantation
Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
Surgical Innovation
Surgical Pearls
Teachable Moment
Technology and Finance
The Art of JAMA
The Arts and Medicine
The Rational Clinical Examination
Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
Translational Medicine
Trauma and Injury
Treatment Adherence
Ultrasonography
Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
Vaccination
Venous Thromboembolism
Veterans Health
Women's Health
Workflow and Process
Wound Care, Infection, Healing
Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
Access PDFs of free articles
Manage your interests
Save searches and receive search alerts

Overview and key findings of the 2024 Digital News Report

This year’s report comes at a time when around half the world’s population have been going to the polls in national and regional elections, and as wars continue to rage in Ukraine and Gaza. In these troubled times, a supply of accurate, independent journalism remains more important than ever, and yet in many of the countries covered in our survey we find the news media increasingly challenged by rising mis- and disinformation, low trust, attacks by politicians, and an uncertain business environment.

Our country pages this year are filled with examples of layoffs, closures, and other cuts due to a combination of rising costs, falling advertising revenues, and sharp declines in traffic from social media. In some parts of the world these economic challenges have made it even harder for news media to resist pressures from powerful businesspeople or governments looking to influence coverage and control narratives.

There is no single cause for this crisis; it has been building for some time, but many of the immediate challenges are compounded by the power and changing strategies of rival big tech companies, including social media, search engines, and video platforms. Some are now explicitly deprioritising news and political content, while others have switched focus from publishers to ‘creators’, and pushing more fun and engaging formats – including video – to keep more attention within their own platforms. These private companies do not have any obligations to the news, but with many people now getting much of their information via these competing platforms, these shifts have consequences not only for the news industry, but also our societies. As if this were not enough, rapid advances in artificial intelligence (AI) are about to set in motion a further series of changes including AI-driven search interfaces and chatbots that could further reduce traffic flows to news websites and apps, adding further uncertainty to how information environments might look in a few years.

Our report this year documents the scale and impact of these ‘platform resets’. With TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube on the rise, we look at why consumers are embracing more video consumption and investigate which mainstream and alternative accounts – including creators and influencers – are getting most attention when it comes to news. We also explore the very different levels of confidence people have in their ability to distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy content on a range of popular third-party platforms around the world. For the first time in our survey, we also take a detailed look at consumer attitudes towards the use of AI in the news, supported by qualitative research in three countries (the UK, US, and Mexico). As publishers rapidly adopt AI, to make their businesses more efficient and to personalise content, our research suggests they need to proceed with caution, as the public generally wants humans in the driving seat at all times.

With publishers struggling to connect with much of the public, and growing numbers of people selectively (and in some cases continuously) avoiding the news, we have also explored different user needs to understand where the biggest gaps lie between what audiences want and what publishers currently provide. And we look at the price that some consumers are currently paying for online news and what might entice more people to join them.

An episode on the findings

Spotify | Apple

This 13th edition of our Digital News Report , which is based on data from six continents and 47 markets, reminds us that these changes are not always evenly distributed. While journalism is struggling overall, in some parts of the world news media remain profitable, independent, and widely trusted. But even in these countries, we find challenges around the pace of change, the role of platforms, and how to adapt to a digital environment that seems to become more complex and fragmented every year. The overall story is captured in this Executive Summary, followed by Section 1 with chapters containing additional analysis, and then individual country and market pages in Section 2.

Here is a summary of some of the key findings from our 2024 research.

In many countries, especially outside Europe and the United States, we find a significant further decline in the use of Facebook for news and a growing reliance on a range of alternatives including private messaging apps and video networks. Facebook news consumption is down 4 percentage points, across all countries, in the last year.

News use across online platforms is fragmenting, with six networks now reaching at least 10% of our respondents, compared with just two a decade ago. YouTube is used for news by almost a third (31%) of our global sample each week, WhatsApp by around a fifth (21%), while TikTok (13%) has overtaken Twitter (10%), now rebranded X, for the first time.

Linked to these shifts, video is becoming a more important source of online news, especially with younger groups. Short news videos are accessed by two-thirds (66%) of our sample each week, with longer formats attracting around half (51%). The main locus of news video consumption is online platforms (72%) rather than publisher websites (22%), increasing the challenges around monetisation and connection.

Although the platform mix is shifting, the majority continue to identify platforms including social media, search, or aggregators as their main gateway to online news. Across markets, only around a fifth of respondents (22%) identify news websites or apps as their main source of online news – that’s down 10 percentage points on 2018. Publishers in a few Northern European markets have managed to buck this trend, but younger groups everywhere are showing a weaker connection with news brands than they did in the past.

Turning to the sources that people pay most attention to when it comes to news on various platforms, we find an increasing focus on partisan commentators, influencers, and young news creators, especially on YouTube and TikTok. But in social networks such as Facebook and X, traditional news brands and journalists still tend to play a prominent role.

Concern about what is real and what is fake on the internet when it comes to online news has risen by 3 percentage points in the last year with around six in ten (59%) saying they are concerned. The figure is considerably higher in South Africa (81%) and the United States (72%), both countries that have been holding elections this year.

Worries about how to distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy content in online platforms is highest for TikTok and X when compared with other online networks. Both platforms have hosted misinformation or conspiracies around stories such as the war in Gaza, and the Princess of Wales’s health, as well as so-called ‘deep fake’ pictures and videos.

As publishers embrace the use of AI we find widespread suspicion about how it might be used, especially for ‘hard’ news stories such as politics or war. There is more comfort with the use of AI in behind-the-scenes tasks such as transcription and translation; in supporting rather than replacing journalists.

Trust in the news (40%) has remained stable over the last year, but is still four points lower overall than it was at the height of the Coronavirus pandemic. Finland remains the country with the highest levels of overall trust (69%), while Greece (23%) and Hungary (23%) have the lowest levels, amid concerns about undue political and business influence over the media.

Elections have increased interest in the news in a few countries, including the United States (+3), but the overall trend remains downward. Interest in news in Argentina, for example, has fallen from 77% in 2017 to 45% today. In the United Kingdom interest in news has almost halved since 2015. In both countries the change is mirrored by a similar decline in interest in politics.

At the same time, we find a rise in selective news avoidance. Around four in ten (39%) now say they sometimes or often avoid the news – up 3 percentage points on last year’s average – with more significant increases in Brazil, Spain, Germany, and Finland. Open comments suggest that the intractable conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East may have had some impact. In a separate question, we find that the proportion that say they feel ‘overloaded’ by the amount of news these days has grown substantially (+11pp) since 2019 when we last asked this question.

In exploring user needs around news, our data suggest that publishers may be focusing too much on updating people on top news stories and not spending enough time providing different perspectives on issues or reporting stories that can provide a basis for occasional optimism. In terms of topics, we find that audiences feel mostly well served by political and sports news but there are gaps around local news in some countries, as well as health and education news.

Our data show little growth in news subscription, with just 17% saying they paid for any online news in the last year, across a basket of 20 richer countries. North European countries such as Norway (40%) and Sweden (31%) have the highest proportion of those paying, with Japan (9%) and the United Kingdom (8%) amongst the lowest. As in previous years, we find that a large proportion of digital subscriptions go to just a few upmarket national brands – reinforcing the winner-takes-most dynamics that are often linked with digital media.

In some countries we find evidence of heavy discounting, with around four in ten (41%) saying they currently pay less than the full price. Prospects of attracting new subscribers remain limited by a continued reluctance to pay for news, linked to low interest and an abundance of free sources. Well over half (55%) of those that are not currently subscribing say that they would pay nothing for online news, with most of the rest prepared to offer the equivalent of just a few dollars per month, when pressed. Across markets, just 2% of non-payers say that they would pay the equivalent of an average full price subscription.

News podcasting remains a bright spot for publishers, attracting younger, well-educated audiences but is a minority activity overall. Across a basket of 20 countries, just over a third (35%) access a podcast monthly, with 13% accessing a show relating to news and current affairs. Many of the most popular podcasts are now filmed and distributed via video platforms such as YouTube and TikTok.

The great platform reset is underway

Online platforms have shaped many aspects of our lives over the last few decades, from how we find and distribute information, how we are advertised to, how we spend our money, how we share experiences, and most recently, how we consume entertainment. But even as online platforms have brought great convenience for consumers – and advertisers have flocked to them – they have also disrupted traditional publishing business models in very profound ways. Our data suggest we are now at the beginning of a technology shift which is bringing a new wave of innovation to the platform environment, presenting challenges for incumbent technology companies, the news industry, and for society.

Platforms have been adjusting strategies in the light of generative AI, and are also navigating changing consumer behaviour, as well as increased regulatory concerns about misinformation and other issues. Meta in particular has been trying to reduce the role of news across Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, and has restricted the algorithmic promotion of political content. The company has also been reducing support for the news industry, not renewing deals worth millions of dollars, and removing its news tab in a number of countries. 1

The impact of these changes, some which have been going on for a while, is illustrated by our first chart which uses aggregated data from 12, mostly developed, markets we have been following since 2014. It shows declining, though still substantial, reach for Facebook over time – down 16pp since 2016 – as well as increased fragmentation of attention across multiple networks. A decade ago, only Facebook and YouTube had a reach of more than 10% for news in these countries, now there are many more networks, often being used in combination (several of them are owned by Meta). Taken together, platforms remain as important as ever – but the role and strategy of individual platforms is changing as they compete and evolve, with Facebook becoming less important, and many others becoming relatively more so.

The previous chart also highlights the strong shift towards video-based networks such as YouTube, TikTok (and Instagram), all of which have grown in importance for news since the COVID-19 pandemic drove new habits. Faced with new competition, both Facebook and X have been refocusing their strategies, looking to keep users within the platform rather than link out to publishers as they might have done in the past. This has involved a prioritisation of video and other proprietary formats. Industry data show that the combined effect of these changes was to reduce traffic referrals from Facebook to publishers by 48% last year and from X by 27%. 2 Looking at survey data across our 47 markets we find much regional and country-based variation in the use of different networks, with the fastest changes in the Global South, perhaps because they tend to be more dependent on social media for news.

TikTok remains most popular with younger groups and, although its use for any purpose is similar to last year, the proportion using it for news has grown to 13% (+2) across all markets and 23% for 18–24s. These averages hide rapid growth in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia. More than a third now use the network for news every week in Thailand (39%) and Kenya (36%), with a quarter or more accessing it in Indonesia (29%) and Peru (27%). This compares with just 4% in the UK, 3% in Denmark, and 9% in the United States. The future of TikTok remains uncertain in the US following concerns about Chinese influence and it is already banned in India, though similar apps, such as Moj, Chingari, and Josh, are emerging there.

The growing reach of TikTok and other youth-orientated networks has not escaped the attention of politicians who have incorporated it into their media campaigns. Argentina’s new populist president, Javier Milei, runs a successful TikTok account with 2.2m followers while the new Indonesian president, Prabowo Subianto, swept to victory in February using a social media campaign featuring AI-generated images, rebranding the former hard-line general as a cute and charming dancing grandpa. We explore the implications for trust and reliability of information later in this report.

Shift to video networks brings different dynamics

Traditional social networks such as Facebook and Twitter were originally built around the social graph – effectively this means content posted directly by friends and contacts (connected content). But video networks such as YouTube and TikTok are focused more on content that can be posted by anybody – recommended content that does not necessarily come from accounts users have chosen to follow.

In previous research ( Digital News Report 2021 , 2023 ) we have shown that when it comes to online news, most audiences still prefer text because of its flexibility and control, but that doesn’t mean that video – and especially short-form video – is not becoming a much bigger part of media diets. Across countries, two-thirds (66%) say they access a short news video, which we defined as a few minutes or less, at least once a week, again with higher levels outside the US and Western Europe. Almost nine in ten of the online population in Thailand (87%), access short-form videos weekly, with half (50%) saying they do this every day. Americans access a little less often (60% weekly and 20% daily), while the British consume the least short-form news (39% weekly and just 9% daily).

Live news streams and long-form recordings are also widely consumed. Taking the United States as an example, we can see how under 35s consume the most of each format, with older people being relatively less likely to consume live or long-form video.

One of the reasons why news video consumption is higher in the United States than in most European countries is the abundant supply of political content from both traditional and non-traditional sources. Some are creators native to online media. Others have come from broadcast backgrounds. In the last few years, a number of high-profile TV anchors, including Megyn Kelly, Tucker Carlson, and Don Lemon, have switched their focus to online platforms as they look to take advantage of changing consumer behaviour.

Carlson’s interview with Russian president Vladimir Putin received more than 200m plays on X and 34m on his YouTube channel. In the UK, another controversial figure, Piers Morgan, recently left his daily broadcast show on Talk TV in favour of the flexibility and control offered as an independent operator working across multiple streaming platforms. (It is worth noting that many of these platform moves came only after the person in question walked out on or were ditched by their former employers on mainstream TV.)

The jury is currently out on whether these big personalities can build robust traffic or sustainable businesses within platform environments. There is a similar challenge for mainstream publishers who find platform-based videos harder to monetise than those consumed via owned and operated websites and apps.

YouTube and Facebook remain the most important platforms for online news video overall (see next chart), but we see significant market differences, with Facebook the most popular for video news in the Philippines, YouTube in South Korea, and X and TikTok playing a key role in Nigeria and Indonesia respectively. YouTube is also the top destination for under 25s, though TikTok and Instagram are not far behind.

Older viewers still like to consume much of their video through news websites, though the majority say they mostly access video via third-party platforms. Only in countries such as Norway do we find that getting on for half of users (45%) say their main video consumption is via websites, a reflection of the strength of brands in that market, a commitment to a good user experience, and a strategy that restricts the number of publisher videos that are posted to platforms like Facebook and YouTube.

Where do people pay attention when using online platforms?

One of the big challenges of the shift to video networks with a younger age profile is that journalists and news organisations are often eclipsed by news creators and other influencers, even when it comes to news.

This year we repeated a question we asked first in 2021 about where audiences pay most attention when it comes to news on various platforms. As in previous years, we find that across markets, while mainstream media and journalists often lead conversations in X and Facebook, they struggle to get as much attention in Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok where alternative sources and personalities, including online influencers and celebrities, are often more prominent.

It is a similar story across many markets, though differences emerge when we look at specific online networks and at a country level. In the following chart we compare attention around news content on YouTube, the second largest network overall. We find that alternative sources and online influencers play a bigger role in both the United States and Brazil than is the case in the United Kingdom.

But who are these personalities and celebrities and what kind of alternative sources are attracting attention? To answer these questions, we asked respondents that had selected each option to list up to three mainstream accounts they followed most closely and then three alternative ones (e.g. alternative accounts, influencers, etc). We then counted and coded these responses.

In the United States, in particular, we find a wide range of politically partisan voices including Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones (recently reinstated on X), Ben Shapiro, Glenn Beck, and many more. These voices come mostly from the right, with a narrative around a ‘trusted’ alternative to what they see as the biassed liberal mainstream media, but there is also significant representation on the progressive left (David Pakman and commentators from Meidas Touch). The top 10 named individuals in the US list are all men who tend to express strong opinions about politics.

Partisan voices (from both left and right) are an important part of the picture elsewhere, but we also find diverse perspectives and new approaches to storytelling. In France, Hugo Travers, 27, known online as Hugo Décrypte, has become a leading news source for young French people for his explanatory videos about politics (2.6m subscribers on YouTube and 5.8m on TikTok). Our data show that across all networks he gets more mentions than traditional news brands such as Le Monde or BFMTV. According to our data, the average audience age of his followers is just 27, compared to between 40 and 45 for large traditional brands such as Le Monde or BFM TV.

Youth-focused brands Brut and Konbini were also widely cited in France, while in the UK, Politics Joe and TLDR News, set up by Jack Kelly, attract attention for videos that try to make serious topics accessible for young people. The most mentioned TikTok news creator in the UK is Dylan Page, who has more than 10m followers on the platform. In the United States, Vitus Spehar presents a fun daily news round-up, often from a prone position on the floor, @underthedesknews (a satirical dig at the classic TV format).

Youth-based news influencers around the world

Coverage of war and conflict

We also found a number of accounts sharing videos about the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. With mainstream news access restricted, young social media influencers in Gaza, Yemen, and elsewhere have been filling in the gaps – documenting the often-brutal realities of life on the ground. Because these videos are posted by many different accounts and ordinary people, it is hard to quantify the impact, but our methodology does pick up a few individual influencer accounts as well as campaigning groups that pull together footage from across social media. As one example, the Instagram account Eye on Palestine appears in our data across a number of countries. The account says it brings ‘the sounds and images that official media does not show’. WarMonitor, one of a number of influential accounts that have been recommended by prominent figures such as Elon Musk, has added hundreds of thousands of followers during the Israel–Palestine conflict.

Finally, celebrities such as Taylor Swift, the Kardashians, and Lionel Messi were widely mentioned by younger people, mostly in reference to Instagram, despite the fact that they rarely talk about politics. This suggests that younger people take a wide view of news, potentially including updates on a singer’s tour dates, on fashion, or on football.

Motivations for using social video

In analysing open comments, we found three core reasons why audiences are attracted to video and other content in social and video platforms.

First, respondents, including many younger ones, say the comparatively unfiltered nature of much of the coverage makes it come across as more trustworthy and authentic than traditional media. ‘I like the videos that were taken by an innocent bystander. These videos are unedited and there is no bias or political spin,’ says one. 3 There is an enduring belief that videos are harder to falsify, while enabling people to make up their own mind, even as the development of AI may lead more people to question it.

Secondly, people talk about the convenience of having news served to you on a platform where you already spend time, which knows your interests, and where ‘the algorithm feeds suggestions based on previous viewing’.

Thirdly, social video platforms are valued for the different perspectives they bring. For some people that meant a partisan perspective that aligns with their interests, but for others it related to the greater depth around a personal passion or a wider range of topics to explore.

It is important to note that very few people only use online video for news each week – around 4% across countries according to our data. The majority use a mix of text, video, and audio – and a combination of mainstream brands that may or may not be supplemented by alternative voices. But as audiences consume more content in these networks, they sometimes worry less about where the content comes from, and more about the convenience and choice delivered within their feed. Though there are examples of successful video consumption within news websites and apps, for most publishers the shift towards video presents a difficult balancing act. How can they take advantage of a format that can engage audiences in powerful ways, including younger ones, while developing meaningful relationships – and businesses – on someone else’s platform?

To what extent do people feel confident about identifying trustworthy news in different online platforms?

In this critical year of elections, many worry about the reliability of content, about the scope for manipulation of online platforms by ‘bad actors’, over how some domestic politicians and media personalities express themselves, and about the opaque ways in which platforms themselves select and promote content.

Across markets the proportion of our respondents that say they are worried about what is real and what is fake on the internet overall is up 3pp from 56% to 59%. It is highest in some of the countries holding polls this year, including South Africa (81%), the United States (72%), and the UK (70%). Taking a regional view, we find the highest levels of concern in Africa (75%) and lower levels in much of Northern and Western Europe (e.g., Norway 45% and Germany 42%).

Previous research shows that these audience concerns about misinformation are often driven less by news that is completely ‘made up’ and more about seeing opinions and agendas that they may disagree with – as well as journalism they regard as superficial and unsubstantiated. In this context it is perhaps not surprising that politics remains the topic that engenders the most concern about ‘fake or misleading’ content, along with health information and news about the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

Against this backdrop of widespread concern, we have, for the first time, asked users of specific online platforms, how easy or difficult they find it to distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy content. Given its increasing use for news – and its much younger age profile – it is worrying to find that more than a quarter of TikTok users (27%) say they struggle to detect trustworthy news, the highest score out of all the networks covered. A further quarter have no strong opinion and around four in ten (44%) say they find it easy. Fact-checkers and others have been paying much more attention to the network recently, with Newsguard reporting in 2022 that a fifth (20%) of a sample of searches on prominent news topics such as Ukraine and COVID vaccines contained misinformation. 4 Most recently it was at the centre of a flood of unfounded rumours and conspiracies about the Princess of Wales after her hospital operation. A significant proportion of X users (24%) also say that it is hard to pick out trustworthy news. This may be because news plays an outsized role on the platform, or because of the wide range of views expressed, further encouraged by Elon Musk, a self-declared free speech advocate, since he took over the company.

The numbers are only a bit lower in some of the largest networks such as Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and WhatsApp, which have all been implicated in various misinformation problems too.

While there is widespread concern about different networks, it is also important to recognise that many people are confident about their ability to tell trustworthy and untrustworthy news and information apart. In fact, around half of respondents using each network say they find it easy to do so, including many younger and less educated users – even if these perceptions may or may not be based on reality. All of the major social and video platforms recognise these challenges, and have been boosting their technical and human defences, not least because of the potential for a flood of AI-generated synthetic content in this year’s elections.

In exploring country differences, we find that people in Western European countries such as Germany (see the next chart) are less confident about their ability to distinguish between trustworthy and untrustworthy information on X and TikTok than respondents in the United States. This may reflect very different official and media narratives about the balance between free speech and online harms. The EU has introduced legislation such as the Digital Services Act, imposing greater obligations on platforms in the run-up to June’s EU Parliament elections. 5 X is currently being investigated over suspected breaches of content moderation rules.

But even within the United States, which has lower concern generally, we find sharp differences based on political beliefs. Amid bitter debates over de-platforming, some voices on the left have been calling for more restrictions and many on the right insisting on even more free speech. We see this political split clearly in the data, especially in terms of attitudes to X and to some extent YouTube.

In our data, people on the left are much more suspicious of content they see in both networks, but other platforms are seen as mostly neutral in this regard. In no other market do we see the same level of polarisation around X, but the same broad left-right dynamics are at play, with the left more uncomfortable about the societal impact of harmful online content.

In some African markets, such as Kenya, we see a significant difference in concern over TikTok compared with other popular networks such as X or WhatsApp, the most used network for news. The app has been labelled ‘a serious threat to the cultural and religious values of Kenya’ in a petition to parliament after being implicated in the sharing of adult content, misinformation, and hate speech. 6 But one other reason for TikTok’s higher score may be because most content there is posted by people they don’t know personally. WhatsApp posts tend to come from a close social circle, who are likely to be more trusted. Paradoxically, this could mean that information spread in WhatsApp carries more danger, because defences may be lower.

Fears around AI and misinformation

The last year has seen an increased incidence of so-called ‘ deepfakes ’, generated by AI including an audio recording falsely purporting to be Joe Biden asking supporters not to vote in a primary, a campaign video containing manipulated photos of Donald Trump, and artificially generated pictures of the war in the Middle East, posted by supporters of both the Palestinian and Israeli sides aimed at winning sympathy for their cause.

AI-generated (fake) pictures from the war have been widely circulated on social media

Our qualitative research suggests that, while most people do not think they have personally seen these kinds of synthetic images or videos, some younger, heavy users of social media now think they are coming across them regularly.

In the US some of our participants felt widespread use of generative AI technologies was likely to make detecting misinformation more difficult, especially around important subjects such as politics and elections; others worried about the lack of transparency and the potential for discrimination against minority groups.

Others took a more balanced view, noting that these technologies could be used to provide more relevant and useful content, while also recognising the risks.

Journalistic uses of artificial intelligence

News organisations have reported extensively on the development and impact of AI on society, but they are also starting to adopt these technologies themselves for two key reasons. First, they hope that automating behind-the-scenes processes such as transcription, copy-editing, and layout will substantially reduce costs. Secondly, AI technologies could help to personalise the content itself – making it more appealing for audiences. They need to do this without reducing audience trust, which many believe will become an increasingly critical asset in a world of abundant synthetic media.

In the last year, we have seen media companies deploying a range of AI solutions, with varying degrees of human oversight. Nordic publishers, including Schibsted, now include AI-generated ‘bullet points’ at the top of many of their titles’ stories to increase engagement. One German publisher uses an AI robot named Klara Indernach to write more than 5% of its published stories, 7 while others have deployed tools such as Midjourney or OpenAI’s Dall-E for automating graphic illustrations. Meanwhile, Digital News Report country pages from Indonesia , South Korea , Slovakia , Taiwan , and Mexico , amongst others, reference a range of experimental chatbots and avatars now presenting the news. Nat is one of three AI-generated news readers from Mexico’s Radio Fórmula, used to deliver breaking news and analysis through its website and across social media channels. 8

Nat, one of Radio Fórmula’s AI-generated news readers

Elsewhere we find content farms increasingly using AI to rewrite news, often without permission and with no human checks in the loop. Industry concerns about copyright and about potential mistakes (some of which could be caused by so-called hallucinations) are well documented, but we know less about how audiences feel about these issues and the implications for trust overall.

Across 28 countries where we included questions, we find our survey respondents to be mostly uncomfortable with the use of AI in situations where content is created mostly by the AI with some human oversight. By contrast, there is less discomfort when AI is used to assist (human) journalists, for example in transcribing interviews or summarising materials for research. Here respondents are broadly more comfortable than uncomfortable.

Our findings, which also show that respondents in the US are significantly more comfortable about different uses of AI than those living in Europe, may be linked to the cues people are getting from the media. British press coverage of AI, for example, has been characterised as overly negative and sensationalist, 9 and UK scores for comfort with less closely monitored use of AI are the lowest in our survey (10%). By contrast, the leading role of US companies and the opportunities for jobs and growth play a bigger part in US media narratives. Across countries, comfort levels are higher with younger groups who are some of the heaviest users of AI tools such as ChatGPT.

Our research also indicates that people who tend to trust the news in general are also more likely to be comfortable with uses of AI where humans (journalists) remain in control, compared with those that don’t. We find comfort gaps ranging from 24 percentage points in the US to 10 percentage points in Mexico. Our qualitative research on AI suggests that trust will be a key issue going forward, with many participants feeling that traditional media have much to lose.

Comfort with AI is also closely related to the importance and seriousness of the subject being discussed. People say they feel less comfortable with AI-generated news on topics such as politics and crime, and more comfortable with sports, arts, or entertainment news, subjects where mistakes tend to have less serious consequences and where there is potentially more value in personalisation of the content.

While participants were generally more concerned for some topics rather than others, there were some important nuances. For example, some could see the value in using AI to automate local election stories to provide a quicker comprehensive service, as these tended to be fact-based and didn’t involve the AI making political judgements.

Finally, we find that comfort levels about the different uses of AI tend to be higher with people who have read or heard more about it, even if many remain cautious. This suggests that, as people use the technology and find it personally useful , they may take a more balanced view of the risks and the benefits going forward.

Overall, we are still at the early stages of journalists’ usage of AI, but this also makes it a time of maximum risk for news organisations. Our data suggest that audiences are still deeply ambivalent about the use of the technology, which means that publishers need to be extremely cautious about where and how they deploy it. Wider concerns about a flood of synthetic content in online platforms means that trusted brands that use the technologies responsibly could be rewarded, but get things wrong and that trust could be easily lost.

Gateways to news and the importance of search and aggregator portals

Publishers are not just concerned about falling referrals from social media but also about what might happen with search and other aggregators if chatbot interfaces take off. Google and Microsoft are both experimenting with integrating more direct answers to news queries generated by AI and a range of existing and new mobile apps are also looking to create new experiences that provide answers without requiring a click-through to a publisher.

It is important to note that across all markets, search and aggregators, taken together (33%), are a more important gateway to news than social media (29%) and direct access (22%). A large proportion of mobile alerts (9%) are also generated by aggregators and portals, adding to the concerns about what might happen next.

Unlike social media, search is seen as important across all age groups – 25% of under 35s also prefer to start news journeys with search – and because people are often actively looking for information, the resulting news journey tends to be more valuable for publishers than social fly-by traffic.

Looking at preferred gateways over time we find that search has been remarkably consistent while direct traffic has become less important and social has grown consistently (until this year). Beneath the averages however we do see significant differences across countries. Portals, which often incorporate search engines and mobile apps, are particularly important in parts of Asia. In Japan, Yahoo! News and Line News remain dominant, while local tech giants Naver and Daum are the key access points in South Korea – developing their own AI solutions. In the Czech Republic, Seznam has been an important local search engine, now supplemented with its own news service and also an innovator in AI. Social and video networks tend to be more important in other parts of Asia, as well as Africa and Latin America, but direct traffic still rules in a few parts of Northern Europe where intermediaries have historically played a smaller role. Publishers without regular direct access will be more vulnerable to platform changes and will inevitably find it harder to build subscription businesses.

Even in countries with relatively strong brands such as the UK, we find significant generational differences when it comes to gateways. Older people are more likely to maintain direct connections, but in the last few years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen both 18–24s and now 25–35s becoming less likely to go directly to a website or app. Across markets we see the same trends with the gap between generations just as significant as country-based differences, if not more.

It is also worth noting the increasing success of mobile aggregators in some countries, many of which are increasingly powered by AI. In the United States, News Break (9%), which was founded by a Chinese tech veteran, has been growing fast with a similar market share to market leader Apple News (11%). In Asian markets, multiple aggregator apps and portals play important gateway and consumption roles, with AI features typically driving ever greater levels of personalisation.

Mobile aggregators tend to be more popular with younger news consumers and are becoming a bigger part of the picture overall, partly fuelled by notifications on relevant topics. In terms of search, there is little evidence that search traffic is drying up and it is certainly not a given that consumers will rush to adopt chatbot interfaces. Even so, publishers expect traffic from search and other gateways to be more unpredictable in the future and will be exploring alternatives with some urgency.

The business of news: subscriptions stalling?

A difficult advertising market, combined with rising costs and the decline in traffic from social media, has put more pressure on the bottom line, especially for publishers that have relied on platform distribution. These factors, together with news about US-based layoffs at the Los Angeles Times , Washington Post , NBC, Business Insider, Wall Street Journal , Condé Nast, and Sports Illustrated, recently led the New Yorker to publish an article titled: ‘Is the Media Prepared for an Extinction-Level Event?’ . The article argued that certain kinds of public interest journalism were now uneconomic and a new, more audience-focused approach was needed.

In this context, and with similar pressures all over the world, we are seeing news media looking to introduce or strengthen reader payment models such as subscription, membership, and donation. Paid models have been a rare bright spot in some of the richer countries in our survey, where publishers still have strong direct connections with readers, but have been difficult to make work elsewhere. As in previous years, our survey shows a significant proportion paying for online news in Norway (40%) and Sweden (31%) and over a fifth in the United States (22%) and Australia (21%), but much lower numbers in Germany (13%), France (11%), Japan (9%), and the UK (8%). There has been very little movement in these top line numbers in the last year.

Proportion that paid for any online news in the last year Selected countries Via subscription/membership/donation or one-off payment

Across 20 countries, where a significant number of publishers are pushing digital subscriptions, payment levels have almost doubled since 2014 from 10% to 17%, but following a significant bump during the COVID pandemic, growth has slowed. Publishers have already signed up many of those prepared to pay, and converted some of the more intermittent payers to ongoing subscriptions or donations. But amid a cost-of-living crisis, it is proving difficult to persuade most of the public to do the same.

In most countries, we continue to see a ‘winner takes most’ market, with a few upmarket national titles scooping up a big proportion of users. In the United States, for example, the New York Times recently announced that it has over 10m subscribers (including 9.9m digital only) while the Washington Post ’s numbers have reportedly declined. Having said that, we do find a growing minority of countries where people are paying, on average, for more than one publication, including in the United States, Switzerland, Poland, and France (see table below).

This may be because some publishers in these markets are bundling together titles in an all-access subscription (e.g., New York Times , Schibsted, Amedia, Bonnier, Mediahuis). As one example, Amedia’s +Alt product, which offers 100 newspapers, magazines, and podcasts, now accounts for 10% of Norwegian subscriptions, up 6 percentage points this year.

In Nordic countries, it is worth noting the high proportion of local titles being paid for online. In Canada, Ireland, and Switzerland, a significant proportion of subscriptions are going to foreign publishers.

Heavy discounting persists in most but not all markets

This year we have looked at the price being paid for main news subscriptions in around 20 countries and compared this with the price that the main publications are charging for news. The results show that in the US and UK a large number of people are paying a very small amount (often just a few pounds or dollars), with many likely to be on low-price trials, as we found in last year’s qualitative research. 10 In the next chart we find that well over half of those in the US who are paying for digital news report paying less than the median cost of a main subscription ($16), often much less. By contrast, in Norway, we see a different pattern with fewer people paying a very small amount and a larger number grouped around the median price, which in any case is much higher than in the US (the equivalent of $25).

The reasons for these differences become clearer when we compare the proportion that are paying the full sticker price for each brand . This allows us to estimate the proportion of subscribers in each country that are paying full price and the proportion that may be on a trial or other special deal. Using this methodology, we find significant differences between countries, with more than three-quarters (78%) in Poland paying less than full price, four in ten (46%) in the United States, but fewer in Norway (38%), Denmark (25%), and France (21%). It is not only the case that more people pay for digital news in the Nordic countries. It is also the case that fewer of them are paying a heavily discounted rate, and in Norway the median price is much higher than in other rich countries such as France, the UK, and the US.

We also asked those not currently paying, what might be a fair price, if anything? Across markets just 2% of non-payers say they would pay the equivalent of an average full price subscription, with 55% saying they wouldn’t be prepared to pay anything. That last number is a bit lower in Norway (45%) but considerably higher in the UK (69%) and Germany (68%). In a few markets in the Global South, such as Brazil, we do find more willingness to pay something, but it rarely amounts to more than the equivalent of a few US dollars.

Not every publisher can expect to make reader revenue work, in large part because much of the public basically does not believe news is worth paying for, and continues to have access to plenty of free options from both commercial, non-profit, and in some countries, public service providers. But for others, building digital subscriptions based on distinctive content is the main hope for a sustainable future. Discounting is an important part of persuading new customers to sample the product but publishers will hope that over time, once the habit is created, they can increase prices. It is likely to be a long and difficult road with few winners and many casualties along the way.

Trust levels stable – have we reached the bottom?

There is little evidence that upcoming elections or the increased prevalence of generative AI has so far had any material impact on trust in the news. Across markets, around four in ten (40%) say they trust most news most of the time, the same score as last year. Finland remains the country with the highest levels of trust (69%), Greece and Hungary (23%) have the lowest levels. Morocco, which was included in the survey for the first time, has a relatively low trust rating (31%), compared with countries elsewhere in Africa, a reflection perhaps of the fact that media control is largely in the hands of political and business elites.

Low trust scores in some other countries such as the US (32%), Argentina (30%), and France (31%) can be partly linked to high levels of polarisation and divisive debates over politics and culture.

As always, it is important to underline that our data are based on people’s perceptions of how trustworthy the media, or individual news brands, are. These scores are aggregates of subjective opinions, not an objective measure of underlying trustworthiness, and as our previous work has shown, any year-on-year changes are often at least as much about political and social factors as narrowly about the news itself. 11

This year, we have also been exploring the key factors driving trust or lack of trust in the news media. We find that high standards, a transparent approach, lack of bias, and fairness in terms of media representation are the four primary factors that influence trust. The top responses are strongly linked and are consistent across countries, ages, and political viewpoints. An overly negative or critical approach, which is much discussed by politicians when critiquing the media, is seen as the least important reason in our list, suggesting that audiences still expect journalists to ask the difficult questions.

These results may give a clear steer to media companies on how to build greater trust. Most of the public want news to be accurate, fair, avoid sensationalism, be open about any agendas and biases including lack of diversity, own up to mistakes – and not pull punches when investigating the rich and powerful. People do not necessarily agree on what this looks like in practice, or which individual brands deliver on it. But what they hope news will offer is remarkably similar across many different groups.

Audience interest in transparency and openness seems to chime with some of the ideas behind recent industry initiatives, such as the Trust Project, a non-profit initiative that encourages publishers to reveal more of their workings using so-called ‘trust indicators’, the Journalism Trust Initiative orchestrated by Reporters without Borders, and others. Some large news organisations, such as the BBC, have gone further, creating units or sub-brands that answer audience questions or aim to explain how the news is checked. BBC Verify, launched in May 2023 aims to show and share work behind the scenes to check and verify information, especially images and video content in an era where misinformation has been growing. ‘People want to know not just what we know (and don't know), but how we know it,’ says BBC News CEO Deborah Turness. Leaving aside the risk that journalists and members of the public often mean different things when talking about transparency, with the former focusing on reporting practices, the latter often on their suspicion that ulterior commercial and/or political motives are at play, our data suggest that these initiatives may not work for all audiences. Transparency is considered most important amongst those who already trust the news (84%), but much less for those are generally distrustful (68%) where there is a risk that it hardens the position of those already suspicious of a brand, if they feel that verification will not be equally applied to both sides of an argument. 12 Those that are less interested in the news are also less likely to feel that being transparent about how the news is made is important.

Attention loss, news avoidance, and news fatigue

For several years we have pointed to a number of measures that suggest growing ambivalence about the news, despite – or perhaps because of – the uncertain and chaotic times in which we live. Interest in news continues to fall in some markets, but has stabilised or increased in others, especially those like Argentina and the United States that are going through, or have recently held, elections.

The long-term trend, however, is down in every country apart from Finland, with high interest halving in some countries over the last decade (UK 70% in 2015; 38% in 2024). Women and young people make up a significant proportion of that decline.

While news interest may have stabilised a bit this year, the proportion that say they selectively avoid the news (sometimes or often) is up by 3pp this year to 39% – a full 10pp higher than it was in 2017. Notable country-based rises this year include Ireland (+10pp), Spain (+8pp), Italy (+7pp), Germany (+5pp), Finland (+5pp), the United States (+5pp), and Denmark (+4pp). The underlying reasons for this have not changed. Selective news avoiders say the news media are often repetitive and boring. Some tell us that the negative nature of the news itself makes them feel anxious and powerless.

Selected news avoidance at highest levels recorded All markets

But it is not just that the news can be depressing, it is also relentless. Across markets, the same proportion, around four in ten (39%) say they feel ‘worn out’ by the amount of news these days, up from 28% in 2019, frequently mentioning the way that coverage of wars, disasters, and politics was squeezing out other things. The increase has been greater in Spain (+18), Denmark (+16pp), Brazil (+16pp), Germany (+15pp), South Africa (+12pp), France (+9pp), and the United Kingdom (+8pp), but a little less in the United States (+3pp) where news fatigue was a bigger factor five years ago. There are no significant differences by age or education, though women (43%) are much more likely to complain about news overload than men (34%).

Since we started tracking these issues, usage of smartphones has increased, as has the number of notifications sent from apps of all kinds, perhaps contributing to the sense that the news has become hard to escape. Platforms that require volume of content to feed their algorithms are potentially another factor driving these increases. It was notable that in our industry survey, at the start of 2024, most publishers said they were planning to produce more videos, more podcasts, and more newsletters this year. 13

User needs and information gaps

Industry leaders recognise the twin challenges of news fatigue and news avoidance, especially around long-running stories such as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. At the same time, disillusion with politics in general may be contributing to declining interest, especially with younger news consumers, as previous reports have shown. Editors are looking for new ways to cover these important stories, by making the news more accessible and engaging – as well as broadening the news agenda but without ‘dumbing down’.

One way in which publishers have been trying to square this circle has been through a ‘user needs’ model, where stories that update people about the latest news are supplemented by commissioning more that educate, inspire, provide perspective, connect, or entertain.

Originally based on audience research at the BBC, the model has been implemented by a number of news organisations around the world. In our survey this year, we asked about eight different needs included in User Needs 2.0, which are nested in four basic needs of knowledge, understanding, feeling, and doing. 14 Our findings show that the three most important user needs globally are staying up to date (‘update me’), learning more (‘educate me’), and gaining varied perspectives (‘give me perspective’). This is pretty consistent across different demographic groups, although the young are a bit more interested in stories that inspire, connect, and entertain when compared with older groups. In the United States, for example, over half (52%) of under 35s think having stories that make them feel better about the world is very or extremely important, compared with around four in ten (43%) of over 35s.

We also asked about how good the media were perceived to be at satisfying each user need. By combining these data with the data on importance, we can create what we call a User Needs Priority Index. This is a form of gap analysis, whereby we take the percentage point gap between the proportion that think a particular need is important and the proportion that think the news media do a good job of providing it and multiply this by the overall importance (as a decimal) to identify the most important gaps. Audiences say, for example, that updating is the most important need, but also think that the media do a good job in this area already. By contrast, there is a much bigger gap in providing different perspectives (e.g. more context, wider set of views) and also around news that ‘makes me feel better about the world’ (offers more hope and optimism).

News organisations may draw different conclusions from these data, depending on their own mission and target audience, but taken as a whole, it is clear news consumers would prefer to dial down the constant updating of news, while dialling up context and wider perspectives that help people better understand the world around them. Most people don’t want the news to be made more entertaining, but they do want more stories that provide more personal utility, help them connect with others, and give people a sense of hope.

Agenda and topic gaps

Adopting a user needs model is one way to address some of the issues that lie behind selective news avoidance and low engagement, but a topic-based lens may also be useful. When looking at levels of interest in different subject areas by age, we find commonalities but also some stark differences. For all age groups, local and international news are considered the most important topics, but there is less consensus around political news. This doesn’t feature in the top five for under-35s but it is a very different story for over-45s where politics remains firmly in the top three. Younger groups are more interested in the environment and climate change, as well as other subjects such as wellness, which are less of a priority for older groups.

If anything, we find even bigger gaps around gender, with men more interested in politics and sport; women more interested in health/wellness and the environment. Much of this is not new but a reminder that older, male-dominated newsrooms may not always be instinctively in tune with the needs of those who don’t look or think like them.

Beyond interest, we also asked respondents to what extent, if at all, they felt their information needs are being met around each of these topics. Across countries we find that most people feel their needs around sport and politics (and often celebrity news) are well served, while there are substantial gaps in some other areas such education, environment, mental health, and social justice.

Local news is a mixed bag. In some countries, including the United States, more than two-thirds (68%) feel that most or all of their needs are being met, despite the loss of many local newspaper titles and journalist jobs over the past decade. Our data suggest that in most countries much of the public does not share the view that there is a crisis of local news – or at least that much of the information they value is being provided by other community actors accessed via search engines or social media.

But in a few countries, notably the UK and Australia, only a little over half say their needs are being met, suggesting that in these countries at least, local news needs are being significantly underserved. These are also countries where local publishers have taken a disproportionate share of job cuts. In countries such as Portugal, Bulgaria, and Japan a higher proportion of unmet needs are largely down to lower interest in local news overall, leaving aside the important role that local news can play in supporting democracy.

Overall, we find clear differences in terms of subject preferences by age and gender which help explain why some groups are engaging less with the news or avoiding it altogether. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to these issues but improving coverage of subjects with higher interest that are currently underserved would be a good starting point.

New formats and the role of audio

Publishers are also exploring different formats as a way of addressing the engagement challenge, especially those that are less immediately reliant on platform algorithms, such as podcasts.

In the last few years, leading publishers such as the New York Times and Schibsted have joined public broadcasters in trying to build their own platforms for distribution to compete with giants like Spotify, using exclusive content or windowing strategies to drive direct traffic. Legacy print publishers have been ramping up their podcast production, finding the combination of text and audio a good fit for specialist journalistic beats, and relatively low cost compared with video. In countries such as the United Kingdom, a strong independent sector is emerging with a range of new launches for politics and economic shows this year, as well as US spin-offs for popular daily podcasts such as the News Agents. Many of the most popular podcasts are now filmed and distributed via video platforms such as YouTube, further blurring the lines between podcasts and video. Across 20 countries where we have been measuring podcast consumption since 2018, just over a third (35%) have accessed one or more podcasts in the last month, but only just over one in ten (13%) regularly use a news one. The share of podcast listening for news shows has remained roughly the same as it was seven years ago.

Podcasts continue to attract younger, richer, and better educated audiences, with news and politics shows heavily skewed towards men, partly due to the dominance of male hosts, as we reported last year. Many markets have become saturated with content, making it hard for new shows to be discovered and also for existing shows to grow audiences.

Conclusions

Our report this year sees news publishers caught in the midst of another set of far-reaching technological and behavioural changes, adding to the pressures on sustainable journalism. But it’s not just news media. The giants of the tech world such as Meta and Google are themselves facing disruption from rivals like Microsoft as well as more agile AI-driven challengers and are looking to maintain their position. In the process, they are changing the way their products work at some pace, with knock-on impacts for an increasingly delicate news ecosystem.

Some kind of platform reset is underway with more emphasis on keeping traffic within their environments and with greater focus on formats proven to drive engagement, such as video. Many newer platforms with younger user bases are far less centred on text and links than incumbent platforms, with content shaped by a multitude of (sometimes hugely popular) creators rather than by established publishers. In some cases, news is being excluded or downgraded because technology companies think it causes more trouble than it is worth. Traffic from social media and search is likely to become more unpredictable over time, but getting off the algorithmic treadmill won’t be easy.

While some media companies continue to perform well in this challenging environment, many others are struggling to convince people that their news is worth paying attention to, let alone paying for. Interest in the news has been falling, the proportion avoiding it has increased, trust remains low, and many consumers are feeling increasingly overwhelmed and confused by the amount of news. Artificial intelligence may make this situation worse, by creating a flood of low-quality content and synthetic media of dubious provenance.

But these shifts also offer a measure of hope that some publishers can establish a stronger position. If news brands are able to show that their journalism is built on accuracy, fairness, and transparency – and that humans remain in control – audiences are more likely to respond positively. Re-engaging audiences will also require publishers to rethink some of the ways that journalism has been practised in the past; to find ways to be more accessible without dumbing down; to report the world as it is whilst also giving hope; to give people different perspectives without turning it into an argument. In a world of superabundant content, success is also likely to be rooted in standing out from the crowd, to be a destination for something that the algorithm and the AI can’t provide while remaining discoverable via many different platforms. Do all that and there is at least a possibility that more people, including some younger ones, will increasingly value and trust news brands once again.

1 https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/mar/26/instagram-meta-political-content-opt-in-rules-threads

2 https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/journalism-media-and-technology-trends-and-predictions-2024

3 While not necessarily a reliable indicator of underlying trustworthiness, such reliance on ‘realism heuristics’ also helps shape often high trust in television news versus other sources.

4 https://www.newsguardtech.com/misinformation-monitor/september-2022/

5 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/mar/26/tech-firms-poised-to-mass-hire-factcheckers-before-eu-elections

6 https://www.semafor.com/article/04/19/2024/tiktok-fight-in-kenya

7 https://wan-ifra.org/2023/11/ai-and-robot-writer-klara-key-todumonts-kolner-stadt-anzeiger-mediens-tech-future-as-it-switches-off-its-presses/

8 https://www.d-id.com/resources/case-study/radioformula/

9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02282-w

10 https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/paying-news-price-conscious-consumers-look-value-amid-cost-living-crisis

11 https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/trust-news-project

12 https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/whos-verifying-bbc-verify/

13 https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/journalism-media-and-technology-trends-and-predictions-2024

14 https://smartocto.com/research/userneeds/

signup block

Perspectives on trust in news
The use of AI in journalism
Audiences and user needs
How much people pay for news
The rise of news influencers
Lee en español
Country and market data
Methodology

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

View all journals
Explore content
About the journal
Publish with us
Sign up for alerts
Published: 19 June 2024

Detection of microplastics in the human penis

Jason Codrington ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0003-1490-4211 1 ,
Alexandra Aponte Varnum 1 ,
Lars Hildebrandt 2 ,
Daniel Pröfrock 2 ,
Joginder Bidhan 1 ,
Kajal Khodamoradi ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2951-4382 1 ,
Anke-Lisa Höhme 3 ,
Martin Held ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-1869-463X 3 ,
Aymara Evans 1 ,
David Velasquez ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0003-0475-4918 1 ,
Christina C. Yarborough 1 ,
Bahareh Ghane-Motlagh 4 ,
Ashutosh Agarwal 1 , 5 ,
Justin Achua ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4159-439X 6 ,
Edoardo Pozzi ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0228-7039 1 , 7 , 8 ,
Francesco Mesquita 1 ,
Francis Petrella 1 ,
David Miller 1 &
Ranjith Ramasamy 1

International Journal of Impotence Research ( 2024 ) Cite this article

749 Accesses

808 Altmetric

Metrics details

Medical research
Sexual dysfunction

The proliferation of microplastics (MPs) represents a burgeoning environmental and health crisis. Measuring less than 5 mm in diameter, MPs have infiltrated atmospheric, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems, penetrating commonplace consumables like seafood, sea salt, and bottled beverages. Their size and surface area render them susceptible to chemical interactions with physiological fluids and tissues, raising bioaccumulation and toxicity concerns. Human exposure to MPs occurs through ingestion, inhalation, and dermal contact. To date, there is no direct evidence identifying MPs in penile tissue. The objective of this study was to assess for potential aggregation of MPs in penile tissue. Tissue samples were extracted from six individuals who underwent surgery for a multi-component inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). Samples were obtained from the corpora using Adson forceps before corporotomy dilation and device implantation and placed into cleaned glassware. A control sample was collected and stored in a McKesson specimen plastic container. The tissue fractions were analyzed using the Agilent 8700 Laser Direct Infrared (LDIR) Chemical Imaging System (Agilent Technologies. Moreover, the morphology of the particles was investigated by a Zeiss Merlin Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), complementing the detection range of LDIR to below 20 µm. MPs via LDIR were identified in 80% of the samples, ranging in size from 20–500 µm. Smaller particles down to 2 µm were detected via SEM. Seven types of MPs were found in the penile tissue, with polyethylene terephthalate (47.8%) and polypropylene (34.7%) being the most prevalent. The detection of MPs in penile tissue raises inquiries on the ramifications of environmental pollutants on sexual health. Our research adds a key dimension to the discussion on man-made pollutants, focusing on MPs in the male reproductive system.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 8 print issues and online access

251,40 € per year

only 31,43 € per issue

Buy this article

Purchase on Springer Link
Instant access to full article PDF

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Does time of intraoperative exposure to the aerobiome increase microbial growth on inflatable penile prostheses?

Microplastics generated when opening plastic packaging

A portable pen-sized instrumentation to measure stiffness of soft tissues in vivo

Data availability.

All relevant data to the current study that was generated and analyzed is available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.

Schwabl P, Köppel S, Königshofer P, Bucsics T, Trauner M, Reiberger T, et al. Detection of various microplastics in human stool: a prospective case series. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171:453–7.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Zhu L, Zhu J, Zuo R, Xu Q, Qian Y, An L. Identification of microplastics in human placenta using laser direct infrared spectroscopy. Sci Total Environ. 2023;856:159060

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Ragusa A, Svelato A, Santacroce C, Catalano P, Notarstefano V, Carnevali O, et al. Plasticenta: first evidence of microplastics in human placenta. Environ Int. 2021;146:106274.

Amato-Lourenço LF, Carvalho-Oliveira R, Júnior GR, Dos Santos Galvão L, Ando RA, Mauad T. Presence of airborne microplastics in human lung tissue. J Hazard Mater. 2021;416:126124.

Jenner LC, Rotchell JM, Bennett RT, Cowen M, Tentzeris V, Sadofsky LR. Detection of microplastics in human lung tissue using μFTIR spectroscopy. Sci Total Environ. 2022;831:154907.

Yang Y, Xie E, Du Z, Peng Z, Han Z, Li L, et al. Detection of various microplastics in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Environ Sci Technol. 2023;57:10911–8.

Wang C, Zhao J, Xing B. Environmental source, fate, and toxicity of microplastics. J Hazard Mater. 2021;407:124357.

da Silva Brito WA, Mutter F, Wende K, Cecchini AL, Schmidt A, Bekeschus S. Consequences of nano and microplastic exposure in rodent models: the known and unknown. Part Fibre Toxicol. 2022;19:28.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Wright SL, Kelly FJ. Plastic and human health: a micro issue? Environ Sci Technol. 2017;51:6634–47.

Ragusa A, Notarstefano V, Svelato A, Belloni A, Gioacchini G, Blondeel C, et al. Raman microspectroscopy detection and characterisation of microplastics in human breastmilk. Polymers. 2022;14:2700.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Cox KD, Covernton GA, Davies HL, Dower JF, Juanes F, Dudas SE. Human consumption of microplastics. Environ Sci Technol. 2019;53:7068–74.

Barceló D, Picó Y, Alfarhan AH. Microplastics: detection in human samples, cell line studies, and health impacts. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2023;101:104204.

Gautam R, Jo J, Acharya M, Maharjan A, Lee D, KC PB. et al. Evaluation of potential toxicity of polyethylene microplastics on human derived cell lines. Sci Total Environ. 2022;838:156089

Sorci G, Loiseau C. Should we worry about the accumulation of microplastics in human organs? EBioMedicine. 2022;82:104191.

Wang W, Ge J, Yu X. Bioavailability and toxicity of microplastics to fish species: A review. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2020;189:109913.

Yong CQY, Valiyaveettil S, Tang BL. Toxicity of microplastics and nanoplastics in mammalian systems. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:1509.

D’Angelo S, Meccariello R. Microplastics: a threat for male fertility. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:2392.

Hou B, Wang F, Liu T, Wang Z. Reproductive toxicity of polystyrene microplastics: In vivo experimental study on testicular toxicity in mice. J Hazard Mater. 2021;405:124028.

Jaeger VK, Walker UA. Erectile dysfunction in systemic sclerosis. Curr Rheumatol Rep. 2016;18:49.

Jung J, Jo HW, Kwon H, Jeong NY. Clinical neuroanatomy and neurotransmitter-mediated regulation of penile erection. Int Neurourol J. 2014;18:58–62.

Sopko NA, Hannan JL, Bivalacqua TJ. Understanding and targeting the Rho kinase pathway in erectile dysfunction. Nat Rev Urol. 2014;11:622–8.

Sorkhi S, Sanchez CC, Cho MC, Cho SY, Chung H, Park MG, et al. Transpelvic magnetic stimulation enhances penile microvascular perfusion in a rat model: a novel interventional strategy to prevent penile fibrosis after cavernosal nerve injury. World J Mens Health. 2022;40:501–8.

Hildebrandt L, Zimmermann T, Primpke S, Fischer D, Gerdts G, Pröfrock D. Comparison and uncertainty evaluation of two centrifugal separators for microplastic sampling. J Hazard Mater. 2021;414:125482.

Morgado V, Palma C, Bettencourt da Silva RJN. Bottom-up evaluation of the uncertainty of the quantification of microplastics contamination in sediment samples. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56:11080–90.

Hildebrandt L, El Gareb F, Zimmermann T, Klein O, Kerstan A, Emeis KC, et al. Spatial distribution of microplastics in the tropical Indian Ocean based on laser direct infrared imaging and microwave-assisted matrix digestion. Environ Pollut Barking Essex 1987. 2022;307:119547.

CAS Google Scholar

Hansen J, Hildebrandt L, Zimmermann T, El Gareb F, Fischer EK, Pröfrock D. Quantification and characterization of microplastics in surface water samples from the Northeast Atlantic Ocean using laser direct infrared imaging. Mar Pollut Bull. 2023;190:114880.

Rani M, Ducoli S, Depero LE, Prica M, Tubić A, Ademovic Z, et al. A complete guide to extraction methods of microplastics from complex environmental matrices. Molecules. 2023;28:5710.

Enders K, Lenz R, Beer S, Stedmon CA. Extraction of microplastic from biota: recommended acidic digestion destroys common plastic polymers. ICES J Mar Sci. 2017;74:326–31.

Article Google Scholar

Lopes C, Fernández-González V, Muniategui-Lorenzo S, Caetano M, Raimundo J. Improved methodology for microplastic extraction from gastrointestinal tracts of fat fish species. Mar Pollut Bull. 2022;181:113911.

Barboza LGA, Dick Vethaak A, Lavorante BRBO, Lundebye AK, Guilhermino L. Marine microplastic debris: an emerging issue for food security, food safety and human health. Mar Pollut Bull. 2018;133:336–48.

Wang S, Lu W, Cao Q, Tu C, Zhong C, Qiu L, et al. Microplastics in the lung tissues associated with blood test index. Toxics. 2023;11:759.

Ribeiro VV, Nobre CR, Moreno BB, Semensatto D, Sanz-Lazaro C, Moreira LB, et al. Oysters and mussels as equivalent sentinels of microplastics and natural particles in coastal environments. Sci Total Environ. 2023;874:162468.

Ourgaud M, Phuong NN, Papillon L, Panagiotopoulos C, Galgani F, Schmidt N, et al. Identification and quantification of microplastics in the marine environment using the laser direct infrared (LDIR) technique. Environ Sci Technol. 2022;56:9999–10009.

Zhao Q, Zhu L, Weng J, Jin Z, Cao Y, Jiang H, et al. Detection and characterization of microplastics in the human testis and semen. Sci Total Environ. 2023;877:162713.

Wu P, Lin S, Cao G, Wu J, Jin H, Wang C, et al. Absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and toxicity of microplastics in the human body and health implications. J Hazard Mater. 2022;437:129361.

Urbanek AK, Rymowicz W, Mirończuk AM. Degradation of plastics and plastic-degrading bacteria in cold marine habitats. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2018;102:7669–78.

Jin Y, Qiu J, Zhang L, Zhu M. [Biodegradation of polyethylene terephthalate: a review]. Sheng Wu Gong Cheng Xue Bao Chin J Biotechnol. 2023;39:4445–62.

Çaykara T, Sande MG, Azoia N, Rodrigues LR, Silva CJ. Exploring the potential of polyethylene terephthalate in the design of antibacterial surfaces. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2020;209:363–72.

Sharifinia M, Bahmanbeigloo ZA, Keshavarzifard M, Khanjani MH, Lyons BP. Microplastic pollution as a grand challenge in marine research: A closer look at their adverse impacts on the immune and reproductive systems. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2020;204:111109.

Potential toxicity of polystyrene microplastic particles. Scientific Reports. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-64464-9

Zhang C, Chen J, Ma S, Sun Z, Wang Z. Microplastics may be a significant cause of male infertility. Am J Mens Health. 2022;16:15579883221096549.

Compa M, Capó X, Alomar C, Deudero S, Sureda A. A meta-analysis of potential biomarkers associated with microplastic ingestion in marine fish. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2024;107:104414.

Hildebrandt L, Nack FL, Zimmermann T, Pröfrock D. Microplastics as a Trojan horse for trace metals. J Hazard Mater Lett. 2021;2:100035.

Article CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Desai Sethi Urology Institute, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA

Jason Codrington, Alexandra Aponte Varnum, Joginder Bidhan, Kajal Khodamoradi, Aymara Evans, David Velasquez, Christina C. Yarborough, Ashutosh Agarwal, Edoardo Pozzi, Francesco Mesquita, Francis Petrella, David Miller & Ranjith Ramasamy

Institute of Coastal Environmental Chemistry, Department for Inorganic Environmental Chemistry, Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Max-Planck-Str 1, 21502, Geesthacht, Germany

Lars Hildebrandt & Daniel Pröfrock

Institute of Membrane Research, Helmholtz-Zentrum Hereon, Max-Planck-Str 1, 21502, Geesthacht, Germany

Anke-Lisa Höhme & Martin Held

Dr. J.T. MacDonald Foundation BioNIUM, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA

Bahareh Ghane-Motlagh

Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Miami, Miami, FL, USA

Ashutosh Agarwal

University of Colorado, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA

Justin Achua

Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy

Edoardo Pozzi

IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele, Urology, Milan, Italy

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Jason Codrington—conceptualization, methodology, investigation, project administration, data curation, visualization, writing—original draft, editing. Alexandra Aponte Varnum—investigation, writing—original draft, editing, data curation, visualization. Lars Hildebrandt—investigation, writing—original draft, validation, resources. Daniel Pröfrock—investigation, editing, validation, resources. Joginder Bidhan—resources, writing—original draft. Kajal Khodamoradi—project administration, resources. Anke-Lisa Höhme—investigation, visualization. Martin Held—writing—original draft, editing. Aymara Evans—writing—original draft. David Velasquez—writing—original draft. Christina C. Yarborough—writing—original draft. Bahareh Ghane-Motlagh—investigation. Ashutosh Agarwal—investigation. Justin Achua—writing—original draft. Edoardo Pozzi—editing. Francesco Mesquita—editing. Francis Petrella—writing—review. David Miller—writing—review. Ranjith Ramasamy—conceptualization, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, editing, funding acquisition

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ranjith Ramasamy .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

Dr. Edoardo Pozzi is currently an Associate Editor for the International Journal of Impotence Research.

Ethics approval

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Miami (Study # 20150740) and conducted following the Declaration of Helsinki. All patients provided written and informed consent to participate in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Codrington, J., Varnum, A.A., Hildebrandt, L. et al. Detection of microplastics in the human penis. Int J Impot Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00930-6

Download citation

Received : 21 March 2024

Revised : 29 May 2024

Accepted : 04 June 2024

Published : 19 June 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00930-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Globally, Biden Receives Higher Ratings Than Trump

Still, most disapprove of how biden has dealt with the israel-hamas war, table of contents.

Views of the U.S.
Confidence in Biden, Trump and other world leaders
Differences by ideology, age and gender
1. Views of the U.S.
2. Confidence in Joe Biden
3. Confidence in Donald Trump
4. Comparing confidence in Macron, Putin and Xi to ratings of Biden and Trump
Biden’s handling of global economic problems
Biden’s handling of climate change
Biden’s handling of China
Biden’s handling of the Russia-Ukraine war
Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war
6. Is U.S. democracy a good example to follow?
Appendix A: Favorability of the United States since 2000
Appendix B: Confidence in the U.S. president since 2001
Acknowledgments
About Pew Research Center’s Spring 2024 Global Attitudes Survey

This Pew Research Center analysis focuses on public opinion of the United States, President Joe Biden and other world leaders. It also explores what people think about Biden’s handling of international issues and their perceptions of American democracy. The study includes publics in 34 countries across the Asia-Pacific region, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, North America and sub-Saharan Africa.

This analysis draws on nationally representative surveys of 40,566 adults conducted from Jan. 5 to May 21, 2024. All surveys were conducted over the phone with adults in Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Surveys were conducted face to face in Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ghana, Hungary, India, Israel, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Tunisia and Turkey. In Australia, we used a mixed-mode probability-based online panel.

A map showing Countries included in this report

Throughout the report, we analyze respondents’ attitudes based on where they place themselves on an ideological scale. We asked about political ideology using several slightly different scales and categorized people as being on the ideological left, center or right.

In most countries, we asked people to place themselves on a scale ranging from “Extreme left” to “Extreme right.” The question was asked this way in Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Peru, the Philippines, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
In Australia, the scale ranged from “Left” to “Right”.
In Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Thailand, ideology was measured on a scale from “Extremely progressive” to “Extremely conservative.”
Ideology was not asked about in Ghana, India, Kenya, Malaysia, Sri Lanka or Tunisia.

Prior to 2024, combined totals were based on rounded topline figures. For all reports beginning in 2024, totals are based on unrounded topline figures, so combined totals might be different than in previous years. Refer to the 2024 topline to see our new rounding procedures applied to past years’ data.

Here are the questions used for the report, along with responses, and the survey methodology .

A dot plot showing that In most countries polled, more have confidence in Biden than Trump

With many around the world closely following the fiercely contested rematch between U.S. President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump, a new Pew Research Center survey finds that, internationally, Biden is viewed more positively than his rival.

Across the 34 nations polled, a median of 43% have confidence in Biden to do the right thing regarding world affairs, while just 28% have confidence in Trump. The gap between ratings is quite wide in many countries, especially in Europe. Biden’s confidence rating is at least 40 percentage points higher than Trump’s in Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden.

However, there are exceptions. There is no statistically significant difference in ratings of Biden and Trump in eight nations we surveyed. And people in Hungary and Tunisia give Trump more positive reviews than Biden, although neither leader gets especially high marks there. (The survey was conducted before Trump’s conviction in a state criminal trial in New York.)

Even though Biden gets better assessments than Trump globally, ratings for the current U.S. president are down since last year in 14 of 21 countries where trends are available, including by double digits in Australia, Israel, Japan, Poland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

A bar chart showing Views of Biden’s international policies

The survey included a series of questions about how Biden is handling major international issues. Overall, opinions are divided on how he is dealing with climate change and global economic problems.

Across the 34 countries polled, a median of around four-in-ten approve of how Biden is dealing with China and with the war between Russia and Ukraine (39% each).

The president gets his most negative reviews on his handling of the Israel-Hamas war: A median of just 31% approve of the way he is handling the conflict, while 57% disapprove. (The survey was conducted prior to Biden announcing a proposal to end the conflict .)

Research in the West Bank and Gaza

Pew Research Center has polled the Palestinian territories in previous years, but we were unable to conduct fieldwork in Gaza or the West Bank for our Spring 2024 survey due to security concerns. We are actively investigating possibilities for both qualitative and quantitative research on public opinion in the region and hope to be able to share data from the region in the coming months.

Six-in-ten Israelis disapprove of how Biden is handling the war, including 53% of Jewish Israelis and 86% of Arab Israelis. (For more on how Israelis rate Biden, read “Israeli Views of the Israel-Hamas War.” )

Of the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed, large majorities in Malaysia, Tunisia and Turkey also disapprove of Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war. Opinion is divided on this issue in Bangladesh.

The new survey finds that overall attitudes toward the United States are generally positive: A median of 54% across the nations polled have a favorable view of the U.S., while 31% have a negative opinion.

However, criticisms of American democracy are common in many nations. We asked respondents whether U.S. democracy is a good example for other countries to follow, used to be a good example but has not been in recent years, or has never been a good example.

A bar chart showing that A median of 4 in 10 across 34 countries say the U.S. used to be a good example of democracy

The predominant view in most countries is that the U.S. used to be a good model but has not been recently. Overall, a median of 21% believe it is currently a good example, while 22% say it has never been a good model for other countries.

In eight of the 13 countries where trends are available, fewer people say American democracy is a good example than said so in spring 2021, when we last asked this question.

For this report, we surveyed 40,566 people in 34 countries – not including the U.S. – from Jan. 5 to May 21, 2024. In addition to this overview, the report includes chapters on:

Attitudes toward the United States
Ratings of Biden
Ratings of Trump
Views of Biden and Trump compared with other world leaders
Views about Biden’s handling of major foreign policy issues
Is the U.S. a good example of democracy?

Read some of the report’s key findings below.

A bar chart showing that International views of the U.S. are largely favorable

At least half of those in most countries surveyed express a favorable opinion of the U.S. Poles are the most positive, at 86% favorable. Of the European nations surveyed, ratings also lean positive in Italy, Hungary and the UK. Elsewhere in Europe, however, opinions tend to be closely divided.

Attitudes toward the U.S. are largely favorable in the Asia-Pacific nations polled, especially Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Thailand. However, most Australians and Malaysians give the U.S. poor marks.

In the Middle East-North Africa region, a 77% majority of Israelis view the U.S. favorably, although this is down from 87% last year. Large majorities in Tunisia and Turkey offer an unfavorable opinion.

The U.S. gets mostly positive ratings in the sub-Saharan African and Latin American nations surveyed. Two-thirds or more see the U.S. favorably in Colombia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and Peru.

Refer to Appendix A for long-term trends on views of the U.S.

Pew Research Center has explored attitudes toward American presidents for over two decades, finding significant shifts in opinions over the years. Data from four Western European nations that we have surveyed consistently – France, Germany, Spain and the UK – shows long-term trends in views of recent presidents.

George W. Bush received low and declining ratings during his time in the White House, while Barack Obama got mostly high marks. Attitudes toward Donald Trump were overwhelmingly negative throughout his presidency. Biden has consistently received more positive reviews than his predecessor, but his ratings have declined in these four countries during his time in office.

A line chart showing Confidence in U.S. presidents across Western Europe

There are nine nations in this year’s survey where six-in-ten adults or more express confidence in Biden. Four are in Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden), two are in the Asia-Pacific region (the Philippines and Thailand) and three are in sub-Saharan Africa (Ghana, Kenya and Nigeria).

Since last year, confidence in Biden has dropped significantly in 14 nations: Seven in Europe, plus Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea. Biden gets his lowest ratings in Turkey and Tunisia, where only about one-in-ten express confidence in him.

The two countries where at least six-in-ten adults have confidence in Trump are Nigeria and the Philippines. Like Biden, Trump gets one of his lowest ratings in Turkey, where just 10% view him favorably.

Confidence in Trump has increased slightly in a few European countries since we last asked about him in 2020, although his ratings remain quite low in Europe.

In contrast, Trump’s ratings have become more negative in Poland since 2019, which was the last year we asked about him there. Israeli views toward the former president have also become more negative over the past five years.

Refer to Appendix B for long-term trends in confidence in U.S. presidents.

A bar chart showing Confidence in Macron, Biden, Trump, Xi and Putin

In addition to exploring confidence in Biden and Trump, the survey asked about trust in French President Emmanuel Macron, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Overall, Macron receives the most positive ratings across the countries in the study, followed closely by Biden. The French president gets higher ratings than his U.S. counterpart in many of the European nations surveyed. Both Xi and Putin receive mostly poor marks across the countries in the study.

A dot plot showing that Approval of Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war is lower among those on the ideological left

In 17 of the 28 countries where political ideology is measured, people on the right are more likely to have a positive opinion of the U.S. than those on the left. For example, 65% of people on the right in Spain view the U.S. favorably, compared with 26% of people on the left.
In 18 countries, people on the right are more likely to express confidence in Trump than those on the left. The gap is especially large in Israel, where 75% of those on the right have confidence in him, compared with just 23% of Israelis on the left.
There are also some sizable ideological differences on views about Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war. In several countries – including about half of the European countries surveyed – people on the right are more likely than those on the left to approve of how Biden is handling the conflict.

A table showing that In many countries, men are more confident in Trump than women are

In several countries – including Canada, all Latin American countries surveyed and several countries in the Asia-Pacific region – adults under 35 are more likely to have a positive opinion of the U.S. when compared with adults ages 50 and older. Australia, Israel and Sweden are the only countries where younger adults have a less favorable view of the U.S.
In Canada, Australia and seven of the 10 European countries surveyed, young adults are less likely than older adults to approve of how Biden is dealing with the Israel-Hamas war .
Men have more confidence in Trump than women do in many of the countries surveyed. The largest difference is in the UK, where men are about twice as likely as women to trust the former U.S. president. In many of the countries surveyed, women are less likely than men to answer this question at all.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

China Global Image
Donald Trump
Environment & Climate
International Political Values
Presidential Approval
U.S. Global Image
Vladimir Putin
War & International Conflict
World Leaders

How Americans and Israelis view one another and the U.S. role in the Israel-Hamas war

In east asia, many people see china’s power and influence as a major threat, how views of the u.s., china and their leaders have changed over time, comparing views of the u.s. and china in 24 countries, poles and hungarians differ over views of russia and the u.s., most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

share this!

June 25, 2024

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies . Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

peer-reviewed publication

trusted source

Using sound waves, scientists develop findings that challenge standard theories of solar convection

by New York University

NYU Abu Dhabi researchers present new evidence for how heat is transported below the sun's surface

A team of solar physicists at NYU Abu Dhabi's Center for Astrophysics and Space Science (CASS), led by Research Scientist Chris S. Hanson, Ph.D., has revealed the interior structure of the sun's supergranules, a flow structure that transports heat from the sun's hidden interior to its surface. The researchers' analysis of the supergranules presents a challenge to the current understanding of solar convection.

The sun generates energy in its core through nuclear fusion ; that energy is then transported to the surface, where it escapes as sunlight. In a study titled " Supergranular-scale solar convection not explained by mixing-length theory ," published in the journal Nature Astronomy , the researchers explain how they utilized Doppler, intensity and magnetic images from the helioseismic and magnetic imager (HMI) onboard NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO) satellite to identify and characterize approximately 23,000 supergranules.

Since the sun's surface is opaque to light, the NYUAD scientists used sound waves to probe the interior structure of the supergranules. These sound waves, which are generated by the smaller granules and are everywhere in the sun, have been successfully used in the past in a field known as helioseismology.

By analyzing such a large dataset of supergranules, which were estimated to extend 20,000 km (~3% into the interior) below the surface of the sun, the scientists were able to determine the up- and downflows associated with supergranular heat transport with unprecedented accuracy. In addition to inferring how deep the supergranules extend, the scientists also discovered that the downflows appeared approximately 40% weaker than the upflows, which suggests that some component was missing from the downflows.

Through extensive testing and theoretical arguments, the authors theorize that the "missing" or unseen component could consist of small scale (approximately 100 km) plumes that transport cooler plasma down into the sun's interior. The sound waves in the sun would be too big to sense these plumes, making the downflows appear weaker. These findings cannot be explained by the widely used mixing-length description of solar convection.

"Supergranules are a significant component of the heat transport mechanisms of the sun, but they present a serious challenge for scientists to understand," said Shravan Hanasoge, Ph.D., research professor, co-author of the paper and co-Principal Investigator of CASS. "Our findings counter assumptions that are central to the current understanding of solar convection, and should inspire further investigation of the sun's supergranules."

The research was conducted within CASS at NYUAD in collaboration with Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Princeton University, and New York University, using NYUAD's high performance computing resources.

Journal information: Nature Astronomy

Provided by New York University

Explore further

Feedback to editors

Researchers develop high-performance anion exchange membranes for sustainability applications

3 hours ago

Half of world's lakes are less resilient to disturbance than they used to be

Modeling software reveals patterns in continuous seismic waveforms during series of stick-slip, magnitude-5 earthquakes

Discovery of vast sex differences in cellular activity has major implications for disease treatment

4 hours ago

Researchers discover new flat electronic bands, paving way for advanced quantum materials

Not all calcite crystals perfect; synthesis methods can alter internal structure, affect chemical reactivity

Boosting 'natural killer' cell activity could improve cancer therapy

7 hours ago

AI predicts upper secondary education dropout as early as the end of primary school

Study reveals how one enzyme hitches a ride on another to recognize tRNA

1,500-year-old reliquary discovered

Relevant physicsforums posts, early universe massive black holes question, interstellar navigation to proxima b with an unmanned probe, questions about dark matter/energy.

10 hours ago

Some photos of Antares and Sigma sagittarii (Nunki)

Jun 23, 2024

Why is the CNO Cycle considered catalytic in stellar nucleosynthesis?

Is the universe older than we think.

Jun 22, 2024

Researchers discover a mysterious type of wave in the sun with unexplained speed

Mar 24, 2022

Decay of sunspot pair elucidates properties of nearby moving magnetic features

Jan 30, 2024

Long-period oscillations control the sun's differential rotation: Study

Mar 27, 2024

Motions in the sun reveal inner workings of sunspot cycle

Jun 25, 2020

Scientists explain mysterious finger-like features in solar flares

Jan 27, 2022

First observation of a focused plasma wave on the sun

May 22, 2024

Recommended for you

Astronomers study evolution of a giant outburst in X-ray binary EXO 2030+375

13 hours ago

Jupiter's upper atmosphere surprises astronomers

12 hours ago

Webb Space Telescope captures star clusters in Cosmic Gems arc

Jun 24, 2024

Observations investigate galaxy cluster Abell S1136

New research challenges black holes as dark matter explanation

Astronomers discover that a well-known X-ray binary is actually a hidden ultraluminous X-ray source

Let us know if there is a problem with our content.

Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form . For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines ).

Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request

Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors.

Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages.

E-mail the story

Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient's address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.

Newsletter sign up

Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we'll never share your details to third parties.

More information Privacy policy

Donate and enjoy an ad-free experience

We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X's mission by getting a premium account.

E-mail newsletter

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
BMJ Open Access
PMC10313982

Responsible dissemination of health and medical research: some guidance points

Raffaella ravinetto.

1 Public Health Department, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerpen, Belgium

Jerome Amir Singh

2 Howard College School of Law, University of Kwazulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

3 Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Ravinetto and Singh argue that better practices can be implemented when disseminating research findings through abstracts, preprints, peer-reviewed publications, press releases and social media

Dissemination has been defined as ‘the targeted distribution of information and intervention materials to a specific public health or clinical practice audience’, 1 and as being ‘simply about getting the findings of your research to the people who can make use of them, to maximise the benefit of the research without delay’. 2 Ethics guidelines concur that research stakeholders have ethical obligations to disseminate positive, inconclusive or negative results, 3 in an accurate, comprehensive and transparent way 4 —even more so during public health emergencies. 5

Traditionally, research results were first shared within the scientific community, and then ‘translated’ into lay language for policymakers and other audiences via the media, policy briefs, lobbying. Today, preprints 6 and press releases 7 often come first. Dissemination of research findings to research participants and communities requires contextualised approaches and have been explored elsewhere. 4 Similarly, trial registries 8 and data sharing are explored elsewhere in this series. Here, we navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by dissemination through peer-review publications, abstracts, preprints, press release, media coverage and social media ( box 1 —summary of research dissemination).

Summary of research dissemination

What —Dissemination of health and medical research entails communicating the findings of research to stakeholders in ways that can facilitate understanding and use.

Why —Any positive, inconclusive or negative research findings should be disseminated to maximise the social value of the research and to accurately inform medical policies and practices.

When —Dissemination of health and medical research should occur as soon as possible after completion of interim and final analysis, particularly during public health emergencies.

Who —Researchers, research institutions, sponsors, developers, publishers and editors must ensure the timely and accurate dissemination of research findings. Similarly, the scientific community should critically appraise research findings; policymakers and clinicians should weigh the implications of research findings for policy and clinical practice; while mainstream media should communicate the implications of research findings to the general public in a manner that facilitates understanding.

How —Research findings are primarily disseminated via press releases, preprints, abstracts and peer-reviewed publications. To ensure timely, comprehensive, accurate, unbiased, unambiguous and transparent dissemination, all research stakeholders should integrate ethics and integrity principles in their institutional dissemination policies and personal belief systems.

Peer-reviewed publications

Publication in peer-reviewed journals remains the benchmark dissemination modality. Independent peer-review aims to assure the quality, accuracy and credibility of reports, but does not always prevent the publication of poorly written, dubious or even fraudulent manuscripts, 9 particularly if there is dearth of qualified reviewers, and/or an findings are hastily published to gain competitive advantage and visibility. 10 Furthermore, researchers who are inexperienced or subject to an institutional ethos of ‘publish or perish’, may choose to publish in predatory journals with highly questionable marketing and peer-review practices. 11 While target audiences may be unable to access findings if journal content is not freely accessible on the Internet, some researchers, particularly those in resource-constrained settings 12 may be unable to publish their research due to resource constraints (eg, publication fees may be prohibitively high). 13 Some may be poorly motivated to publish inconclusive or negative data. 14 Because of such shortcomings, commentators such as Horby warn that ‘clinicians should not rely solely on peer review to assess the validity and meaningfulness of research findings’. 15

For peer-reviewed publications to remain a key-dissemination modality, editors should follow the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals , of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and comply with the core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (eg, data and reproducibility, ethical oversight, authorship and contributorship, etc.). This entails going beyond a ‘checklist approach’ and subjecting manuscripts to rigorous screening and assessment. Journals should strive to select qualified independent reviewers and prioritise open-access policies. Research institutions should distance themselves from a ‘publish or perish’ culture which, together with the willingness to hide ‘unfavourable’ results, remains a major driver of unethical publication practices—which, in turn, translates to ill-informed policies and practices. 16

Scientific conferences are valuable venues for sharing research results with peers, and getting prepublication critical feedback. Abstracts often appear in the supplement of a scientific journal, which reaches a broader audience. However, even if attendance costs are not prohibitively expensive, the selection of abstracts may be highly competitive. As a result, not all research findings—even of topical interest—are selected. Furthermore, even if selection is conducted by independent experts, the limited information contained in an abstract may mask scientific and/or ethical shortcomings in the work.

Communication via abstracts is laudable, but should be rapidly followed by peer-reviewed publications, which allows for the findings to be comprehensively reviewed by experts. When abstracts remain the sole source of information, the findings’ significance might be misunderstood, overestimated or wrongly used to guide behaviours, policies and practices.

Preprints, that is, preliminary reports of work not yet peer-reviewed, are uploaded in dedicated free-access servers, such as https://www.medrxiv.org/ . Preprints are increasingly being used by health researchers, thanks to the evolving policies of major journals that now accept manuscripts previously posted as preprints. 17 Theoretically, preprints possess high value as they allow for rapid, open-access dissemination, and immediate yet informal peer-appraisal in the comments section. However, preprints also hold implicit risks. For instance, rapidity may detract from quality and accuracy; most peers will not be able to systematically invest time for the expected high-quality feedback; rushed or inexperienced readers may miss the (sometimes, small print) cautioning that preprints should not be considered established information, nor become the basis for informing policy or medical guidelines; and findings from preprints that may later be substantially revised or rejected after undergoing peer-review processes, could continue to be relied on and disseminated if, for example, they were included in scoping or systematic reviews before peer-review (the same applies to retracted peer-reviewed manuscripts).

To mitigate such risks, researchers should submit preprint manuscripts to a peer-reviewed journal as soon as reasonably possible, and transparently communicate on negative peer-review outcomes, or justify why the preprint is not being timeously submitted to a peer-review journal. Once accepted or published, researchers could remove their preprint from preprint servers or link to the final published version. The media have a duty to communicate preprint findings as unreviewed and subject to change. The scientific community should reach agreement on ‘Good Preprint Practices’ and ascribe less ambiguous terminology to preprints (eg, ‘Not peer-reviewed’ or ‘Peer-review pending’). 18

Press releases, media coverage and social media

Since 2021, the dissemination of clinical trial findings by corporate press release has almost become synonymous with announcements of COVID-19 scientific breakthroughs. Therefore, it seems important to briefly contextualise the strategy underpinning such dissemination. Corporate press releases are often preceded by stock repurchasing or ‘buybacks’, that is, companies buy back part of their own stock held by executives. This increases demand for the stock and enhances earnings per share. 19 Pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies typically engage in strategically timed buybacks, before press releases announcing significant research findings. Furthermore, corporates in the USA and elsewhere may employ press releases to comply with the legal requirements to disclose information that impact on their market values, and changes in their ‘financial conditions and operations’. 20 Press releases are typically drafted by marketing experts and they are often first aimed at the market, and driven by corporate interests rather than social value.

For researchers, the potential to amplify scientific visibility through mass media may act as a powerful incentive to indulge in flattering but inaccurate language. Nonetheless, they have a moral responsibility to review press releases for accuracy, and to immediately make key-information including the protocol, analysis plan and detailed results, publicly available. For instance, the media briefing that announced on 16 June 2020 the life-saving benefit of dexamethasone in severe COVID-19 was followed on 26 June by a preprint with full trial results 15 . In ab sence of such good practices, press releases can contain inaccuracies or overhype findings 7 with major damaging downstream effects. 16

The media have an equally significant impact on science dissemination: peer-reviewed publications which receive more attention from lay-press, are more likely to be cited in scientific literature. 21 Perceived media credibility also impacts on dissemination: once individuals trust a media source, 22 they often let down their guard on evaluating the credibility of that source. This speaks to the importance of discerning media dissemination ( box 2 ). Journalists who cover early press releases should critically appraise them considering their limitations and potential conflicts of interest.

Recommendations for journalists

Recommendations for journalists who cover (early) press release.

A. Always be conscious of the power of the media to shape the views, fears and beliefs of the public, in the short term, medium term and long term.

B. Weigh the tone and the extent of coverage afforded to press releases, based, among other factors, on:

A critical appraisal of whether the press release was preceded by stock buyouts and/or aimed at influencing corporates share values.
A critical appraisal of the science underpinning the press release, such as the sample size, study population representativeness (for instance, age, sex, ethnicity), research questions that are not addressed yet, and any omissions of potential harms.
A recourse to the views of independent scientists, paying attention to any declared or undeclared conflicts of interest that may bias their opinions.

C. Critically appraise the accuracy and possible biases of (independent) scientists’ opinions on press releases, when shared on personal social media feeds, before deciding whether to afford coverage to such views.

D. Afford the same coverage given to the initial press release (or more, if necessary) to any significant follow-up information-related thereto.

A call for good dissemination practices

The scientific community, health system policy-makers and regulators are the primary audience of peer-reviewed manuscripts, abstracts and preprints. These constituents should be, or become, ‘sufficiently skilled in critical thinking and scientific methods that they can make sensible decisions, regardless of whether an article is peer reviewed or not’ 15 ; understand that the nature of scientific knowledge is incremental and cumulative (one study seldom changes practice on its own); and also critically assess other sources, for example, pharmacovigilance, etc. Conversely, corporate press releases are aimed at influencing the market, and society as a whole—and not suited for scientific appraisal.

Irrespective of dissemination modalities, upstream information is cascaded to mainstream and social media, spreading knowledge but risk catalysing misunderstanding or overemphasis. Risks are only partially mitigated by independent quality control on the upstream information (relatively stringent in peer-review, weaker in preprints and abstracts, and virtually absent for press releases). In table 1 , we summarise recommendations for good dissemination practices, aimed at researchers, research institutions, developers, medical journals editors, media, journalists, social media actors, medical opinion leaders, policy-makers, regulators and the scientific community. All these stakeholders should integrate ethics and integrity in their policies and behaviours, to ensure timely, comprehensive, accurate, unbiased, unambiguous and transparent dissemination of research findings.

Summary of the recommendations for good dissemination practices

Dissemination modality	Recommendation
Peer-reviewed publication	Avoid predatory journals (researchers, research institutions)
	Publish all findings, even if ‘negative’ or inconclusive (researchers, research institutions, developers)
	Avoid fostering an institutional ‘publish or perish’ culture (research institutions)
	Publish open access when possible (researchers, research institutions, developers)
	Adopt fair prices for open access publication fees (publishers)
	Rigorously ensure compliance with ICMJE requirements, beyond a checklist approach (editors of medical journals)
	Rigorously ensure compliance with COPE core practices, beyond a checklist approach (editors of medical journals)
Abstracts	Ensure they are rapidly followed by (preprint and) peer-reviewed publication (researchers, research institutions, developers)
Preprints	Ensure they are rapidly followed by peer-reviewed publication (researchers, research institutions, developers)
	Be transparent about lack of submission to peer-review journals or rejection. On peer-review publication, withdraw preprint or add a link to the final publication (researchers, research institutions, developers).
	Present preprints contents as ‘non-confirmed yet’ (researchers, research institutions, developers, mainstream media)
	Develop formal ‘Good Preprint Practices’ (scientific community, editors of medical journals)
	Agree on a non-ambiguous terminology, such as ‘Not peer-reviewed’ or ‘peer-review pending’ (scientific community, editors of medical journals)
Press releases	Ensure accuracy, clarity and completeness of contents (research, research institutions, developers)
	Immediately make key information, for example, protocol, analysis plan and detailed results, publicly available (research, research institutions, developers)
	Critically appraise press release for ethics, science and biases, and afford coverage to further communications accordingly (mainstream social media, journalists, social media actors, opinion leaders)
	Be mindful about personal comments, particularly but not only in social media feeds (researchers, opinion leaders)
	Be cautious about disseminating scientists’ opinions shared on personal social media feeds (mainstream media, journalists, social media actors)
All modalities	Disseminate in a timely, comprehensive, accurate, unbiased, unambiguous and transparent manner (researchers, research institutions, developers)
	Critically appraise all information before commenting, disseminating to secondary audiences or use (opinion leaders, mainstream media, journalists, social media actors, policy-makers in health systems, regulators, clinicians)

COPE, Committee on Publication Ethics; ICMJE, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Twitter: @RRavinetto

Contributors: This manuscript was jointly written by RR and JAS.

Funding: The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests: None declared.

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

IMAGES

What is the dissemination of research and why is it so important?
SOLUTION: Research Dissemination Plan
Develop your research dissemination plan in seven simple steps
(PDF) Disseminating research findings: What should researchers do? A
Research Findings
Dissemination Planning Tool: Exhibit A from Volume 4

VIDEO

The Dissertation Literature Review: Tips for Organizing and Analyzing Sources
Research Design, Research Method: What's the Difference?
Dissemination of Research Findings-1
PSY 490: SENIOR SEMINAR PSYCHOLOGY Session 01
Research Dissemination 2023
Dissemination of the findings of the Corruption Risk Assessments on the education and health sectors

COMMENTS

Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research
Dissemination of research is still largely ruled by the written or spoken word. However, there are many ways to introduce visual elements that can act as attractive means to help your audience understand and interpret your research. Disseminate findings through art or multimedia interpretations.
A Guide to Effective Dissemination of Research
Research that never gets shared has limited benefits. Research dissemination involves sharing research findings with the relevant audiences so the research's impact and utility can reach its full potential. When done effectively, dissemination gets the research into the hands of those it can most positively impact. This may include: Academics
How to disseminate your research
Principles of good dissemination. Stakeholder engagement: Work out who your primary audience is; engage with them early and keep in touch throughout the project, ideally involving them from the planning of the study to the dissemination of findings. This should create 'pull' for your research i.e. a waiting audience for your outputs.
Communicating and disseminating research findings to study participants
The researcher interview guide was designed to understand researchers' perspectives on communicating and disseminating research findings to participants; explore past experiences, if any, of researchers with communication and dissemination of research findings to study participants; document any approaches researchers may have used or intend ...
Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A
We define dissemination as a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences and the settings in which research findings are to be received and, where appropriate, communicating and interacting with wider policy and health service audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake in decision-making processes and practice.
PDF Ten simple rules for innovative dissemination of research
Following Wilson and colleagues [12], we here define research dissemination as a planned process that involves consideration of target audiences, consideration of the settings in which research findings are to be received, and communicating and interacting with wider audiences in ways that will facilitate research uptake and understanding.
PDF Quick-Start Guide to Dissemination for Practice-Based Research Networks
Introduction. Dissemination refers to the process of sharing research findings with stakeholders and wider audiences. Dissemination is essential for uptake, and uptake and use of research findings is crucial for the success and sustainability of practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in the long term.
Communicating and disseminating research findings to study ...
Introduction: Translating research findings into practice requires understanding how to meet communication and dissemination needs and preferences of intended audiences including past research participants (PSPs) who want, but seldom receive, information on research findings during or after participating in research studies. Most researchers want to let others, including PSP, know about their ...
Evidence-Based Practice: A New Dissemination Guide
Evidence-Based Practice: A New Dissemination Guide. Evidence-Based Practice: A New Dissemination Guide Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2021 Feb;18(1):4-7. doi: 10.1111/wvn.12489. Epub 2021 Feb 3. Authors Jennifer Dean 1 2 , Lynn Gallagher-Ford 1 , Linda Connor 1 3 Affiliations 1 Helene Fuld Health Trust National Institute for ...
Disseminating the Findings of your Research Study
Disseminating the Findings of your Research Study. It is very important to find appropriate ways to disseminate the findings of your research - projects that sit on office or library shelves and are seldom or never read represent a tragic loss to the profession. A key dimension of research dissemination is to be actively involved with ...
PDF How to disseminate your research
Case studies - click for examples of effective dissemination. » Case study 1: Using blogs, podcasts and social media to increase reach. » Case study 2: Making use of press releases and infographics. » Case study 3: BITES and Signals to showcase findings. » Case study 4: New ways of utilising steering groups for dissemination.
What is dissemination of research and why is it so important?
Dissemination of research results is an important aspect of the research process because it ensures that the benefits of the study are passed on to others and that it is put to good use. A research's proper dissemination is however supposed to draw the attention of governments or stakeholders to the research's outcomes, giving a social ...
The Role of Dissemination as a Fundamental Part of a Research Project
Dissemination and communication of research should be considered as an integral part of any research project. ... was an essential component of the project in order to achieve the purpose of fostering policy change based on research findings. Here we provide our experience and make some recommendations based on our learning. A strong use of ...
Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A
Background Addressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally. However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover, the expectations and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another. Against ...
(PDF) Communicating and Disseminating Research Findings to Study
Introduction: Translating research findings into practice requires understanding how to meet communication and dissemination needs and preferences of intended audiences including past research ...
Create a Research Dissemination Plan
Research Dissemination; Dissemination Plan Examples; Dissemination Plan Template. Dissemination Plan Template; Guide Background; Dissemination Plan Template. What kinds of research findings do you want to share (data, videos, images, etc.)? Does your research contain sensitive or protected data? Will you need to place conditions or restrictions ...
Strategies for effective dissemination of research to United States
Finally, the dissemination of research to policymakers may raise certain ethical issues. It is imperative for researchers to critically assess when and how to disseminate research findings to policymakers, keeping in mind that promoting a specific policy agenda may result in a perceived or real loss of objectivity . Syntheses of policy-relevant ...
(PDF) Strategies for Disseminating Qualitative Research Findings: Three
Dissemination, as the written or oral representation of research findings, usually happ ens. at the end of a research project (B arnes et al. 2003) and is part of. utilisation - utilisation ...
Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review
Conclusions: Dissemination of research findings is likely to be a biased process, although the actual impact of such bias depends on specific circumstances. The prospective registration of clinical trials and the endorsement of reporting guidelines may reduce research dissemination bias in clinical research. In systematic reviews, measures can ...
Trends in Financial Sextortion: An investigation of sextortion reports
Key Findings. Sextortion, and particularly financial sextortion, continues to be a major and ongoing threat, with an average of 812 reports of sextortion per week to NCMEC in the last year of data analyzed, and with reason to expect that the vast majority of those reports are financial sextortion.
NBA-Sponsored Research Lauded for Jumper's Knee Findings
Over the summer, Schmidt conducted this research—which was sponsored by the National Basketball Association—in collaboration with Stanford University. Jumper's knee is a critical issue for basketball players, as approximately one-third of basketball athletes experience symptoms such as pain and swelling, and in the long term they retire ...
Strategies for effective dissemination of research to United States
Research has the potential to influence US social policy; however, existing research in this area lacks a coherent message. The Model for Dissemination of Research provides a framework through which to synthesize lessons learned from research to date on the process of translating research to US policymakers. The peer-reviewed and grey literature was systematically reviewed to understand common ...
Dear Colleague Letter: Sunsetting the NSF-NIST Disaster Resilience
The annual DRRG symposium, where recipients present annual progress and findings from DRRG-funded research, has attracted over 600 attendees each year. DRRG symposia will still happen in 2024, 2025, and 2026 to promote information exchange and dissemination of new knowledge among the many stakeholders throughout the disaster resilience community.
Dispensing of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists to Adolescents
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) were approved for type 2 diabetes in 2005 and for weight management in 2014. 1 Interest in these drugs has surged, spurred partly by the approval of semaglutide for weight management in 2021. 1
Overview and key findings of the 2024 Digital News Report
Here is a summary of some of the key findings from our 2024 research. In many countries, especially outside Europe and the United States, we find a significant further decline in the use of Facebook for news and a growing reliance on a range of alternatives including private messaging apps and video networks. Facebook news consumption is down 4 ...
Dissemination of Research Results: On the Path to Practice Change
The dissemination of research is an important first step on the path toward knowledge translation and practice change. Presenting research at professional meetings allows for more rapid dissemination of research findings, but the audience may be narrow, and the depth of information that can be provided in this format is limited.
Detection of microplastics in the human penis
The proliferation of microplastics (MPs) represents a burgeoning environmental and health crisis. Measuring less than 5 mm in diameter, MPs have infiltrated atmospheric, freshwater, and ...
Globally, Biden Gets Higher Ratings Than Trump
Read some of the report's key findings below. Views of the U.S. At least half of those in most countries surveyed express a favorable opinion of the U.S. Poles are the most positive, at 86% favorable. Of the European nations surveyed, ratings also lean positive in Italy, Hungary and the UK.
Using sound waves, scientists develop findings that challenge standard
A team of solar physicists at NYU Abu Dhabi's Center for Astrophysics and Space Science (CASS), led by Research Scientist Chris S. Hanson, Ph.D., has revealed the interior structure of the sun's ...
Responsible dissemination of health and medical research: some guidance
What —Dissemination of health and medical research entails communicating the findings of research to stakeholders in ways that can facilitate understanding and use. Why —Any positive, inconclusive or negative research findings should be disseminated to maximise the social value of the research and to accurately inform medical policies and ...

What you need to know about research dissemination

1. Identify your audience

2. Create the content

3. Take a strategic approach to dissemination

4. Manage the timeline and resources

Making formal presentations

Communication with stakeholders

Engaging with the public

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Editor’s picks

Latest articles

Log in or sign up

How to disseminate your research

What does NIHR mean by dissemination?

Principles of good dissemination

Your dissemination plan: things to consider

More advice on dissemination

Doing Research in Counselling and Psychotherapy

What is the dissemination of research and why is it so important?

Why is the dissemination of research important?

Open science for all

Indicators of disseminating a research

Qualitative measurements

Quantitative measurements

How can a graphical abstract help disseminate your research?

How to create a graphical abstract easily?

Subscribe to our newsletter

About Jessica Abbadia

Content tags

Create a Research Dissemination Plan

Save citation to file

Add to My Bibliography

Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases

Similar articles

Publication types

Related information

LinkOut - more resources

Trends in Financial Sextortion: An investigation of sextortion reports in NCMEC CyberTipline data

Key Findings

Research Conducted in Partnership:

Introduction

The Rise of Financial Sextortion

NCMEC received an average of 812 sextortion reports per week.

90% of victims detected in NCMEC reports were male, aged 14 to 17.

Victim Impact

Continued extortion

Image Dissemination

Self-harm or suicide

Among reports that include details on victim impact, 1 in 8 discuss thoughts of suicide or self-harm.

38% of reports with chat logs included exaggerated impacts and/or threats of ruining the victim’s life.

Countdowns & Constant Contact

Initial contact

1 in 10 reports with information about the platform of first meeting mentioned Omegle or Wizz as an initial contact point.

Secondary contact

Reporting Landscape

Dominant reporters

Reporting timeframes

Report Contents

Gaps in reporting

Looking ahead

Technology is being used to scale attacks while threats of dire outcomes – which often mirror societal warnings – fuel victim isolation.

Platform reporting of sextortion is widely varied, and sextortion is less likely to be reported on some platforms.

Methodology

limitations

Suggested citation

For those experiencing sextortion

For those worried about their imagery being shared

Additional resources and information on sextortion

Interested in Thorn research?

Strategies for effective dissemination of research to United States policymakers: a systematic review

Conclusions

Registration

Contributions to the literature

Eligibility criteria

Information sources

Search strategy

Selection process

Data synthesis

Descriptive results

Model for dissemination of research