ArticleChild abuse & neglect2026
Use of research evidence in U.S. state child abuse and neglect policies: 2019-2024.
Article in Child abuse & neglect, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChild abuse and neglect (CAN) inflicts long-term costs on both individuals and society, yet little is known about how state-level legislation incorporates research evidence to address CAN.
objectiveThe study examined bill- and state-level factors for association with the use of research evidence (URE) in CAN-related legislation. PARTICIPANTS AND
settingCAN-related state legislation introduced between 2019 and 2024 (N = 27,703).
methodsUsing multilevel mixed effects modeling, we assessed how bill-level (e.g., bipartisan sponsorship) and state-level (e.g., policy innovativeness) factors predicted the presence of research language in legislation. We also evaluated whether enacted bills were more likely to contain research language.
resultsPolicy innovativeness (OR = 1.18, 95% CI [1.02,1.35]), an interaction between policy innovativeness and GSP per capita (OR = 1.19, 95% CI [1.06,1.33]), sponsor/cosponsor count (OR = 1.01, 95% CI [1.00,1.01]), bipartisan (co)sponsorship (OR = 1.30, 95% CI [1.18,1.43]), substance use disorder language (OR = 12.10, 95% CI [10.60,13.90]), social determinants of health language (OR = 6.07, 95% CI [5.28,6.98]), COVID-19 time period (OR = 1.10, 95% CI [1.06,1.14]), and enactment status (OR = 1.27, 95% CI [1.19,1.37]) all significantly predicted increased odds of research language inclusion in bills. Research and development expenditures predicted lower odds (OR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.70,0.997]) of research language inclusion.
conclusionsBoth bill- and state-level factors influence the presence of research language in CAN-related legislation, highlighting the ways that contextual factors may promote evidence-based policymaking. Promoting evidence-based policymaking can help address CAN, reduce CAN rates, and further the reach of CAN-related research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.