Abstract:Bridging research to policy can be a noble but daunting task. We all hope that the body of research we develop, if disseminated well, will inform policies for children. We often confront barriers to this, such as incongruence of research and policy time frames, misalignment of stakeholders, and disagreement on goals of objectives, but what does one do when the gravity of an issue requires an urgent policy response but the quality of evidence is lacking? Such was my experience as a White House appointee on the Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities. The commission, created through the Protect Our Kids Act of 2012, was charged to develop a national strategy for reducing child abuse fatalities. After visiting state officials, community leaders, and families across the country over 2 years, the commission concluded that an innovative cross-sector public health approach was needed. However, arriving at that conclusion was not simple.1 The commission’s task to weigh the strength of the evidence for preventing child abuse fatalities seemed straightforward. The statistics on child abuse fatalities were compelling; 4 to 8 children die of abuse and neglect every day in this country, and for every fatality of an infant younger than 1 year, 10 other infants require hospitalization.2 As we weighed the individual stories of these children and the anecdotes of what went wrong, it became apparent that little empirical evidence exists about what interventions could best prevent child abuse fatalities. Many clinical trials, such as those featuring trauma treatment, parenting skill building, or parental and child behavioral health screening and treatment, reduced child welfare involvement or improved parenting practices but did not measure abuse fatalities. Families who are repeatedly reported to the child welfare system share some characteristics with those who ultimately kill their children, but fatal child abuse has its own epidemiology. Fatalities principally occur in younger children3 and often through unique mechanisms (eg, shaken baby syndrome, murder-suicides within families, infanticide, or neglect fatalities related to poor supervision or parent intoxication). The sobering reality is that when one distills the evidence to focus solely on fatalities, there is only 1 clinical trial4 of an early infancy home visitation program that has reported a reduction in abuse-related mortality, albeit with small numbers. The prevention trials we reviewed generally had insufficient sample sizes to examine fatalities. The truth is that public policy frequently requires leaders to make their best assessment in the absence of definitive evidence. Even when randomized clinical trials are available, their generalizability to real-world practice at scale may be questionable. Implementation science theory supports intervention context— community and organizational resources, networks and processes, and patient/client efficacy and engagement—as a critically important influencer of outcomes in the implementation of evidence-based models.5 For example, while some early trial evidence found that home visitation might reduce child abuse,6 other trial and implementation evidence has been mixed.7-9 Regardless, the government is funding and growing a national program of home visiting (ie, Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting) with an aim of maltreatment prevention based on a minority of old trials. In fact, a US Preventive Services Task Force systematic review10 concluded that the evidence that home visiting reduces child abuse is weak. This is not to say that home visiting programs are ineffective—they affect a range of maternal and child outcomes—but it is not clear that these programs can help reduce child abuse. How does one develop policy when evidence is lacking? I pondered that a lot during commission hearings and came to realize that there was a power in the cumulative testimony we were receiving across the country. We heard of substance abuse treatment programs in Hillsborough County, Florida, that reduced cosleeping deaths associated with intoxication by providing expectant mothers with cardboard bassinets. We encountered a public health program in Wisconsin that offered voluntary services to families who were reported to child welfare systems but not substantiated for maltreatment. Child welfare social workers in Vermont routinely visited families alongside domestic violence counselors. Coordinated care organizations in Oregon’s Medicaid program worked with child welfare professionals to identify risk and refer families for treatment as early as possible. Military authorities in Colorado Springs shared data proactively with civilian child welfare professionals to identify high-risk military families who were using both military and civilian service systems. As we traveled across the country, numerous communities anecdotally reported fewer fatalities after integrating their service delivery systems with single-case management, reducing barriers for families to access services, and working collaboratively across disciplines to mitigate risk. Because the testimonials were anecdotes, not rigorous scientific investigation, the question is whether they should have been disregarded. I would argue not. The richness of scientific evidence may not have been a problem when deliberating vaccine policy, but vaccine policy may be the exception rather than the rule. When it comes to most child health policy, it would be a mistake to disregard community testimony that lacks P values. One could argue that, distilled down, the commission conducted a rich qualitative experiment in which we received local testimony and analyzed common themes among a purposively sampled small set of communities. Given every community that reported a VIEWPOINT

[The effect of antibacterial substances on spread resistance of bacteria].

Diversity, geographical distribution and predictive factors of Hepatitis C virus genotypes and subtypes in Rwanda

Developing Policy When Evidence Is Lacking.

Low prevalence of HIV in the northern Cameroon: contribution of some AIDS restriction genes and potential implications for gene therapy

Phylogenetic evidence of extensive spatial mixing of diverse HIV-1 group M lineages within Cameroon but not between its neighbours

Holy Cross football team hepatitis outbreak.

Identification of two novel subtypes of hepatitis C virus genotype 8 and a potential new genotype successfully treated with direct acting antivirals

Hepatitis C virus genotype/subtype distribution and evolution among Chinese blood donors: Revealing recent viral expansion

The distribution of hepatitis C viral genotypes shifted among chronic hepatitis C patients in Yunnan, China, between 2008–2018

Distribution and changes in hepatitis C virus genotype in China from 2010 to 2020

Mixed Infections Unravel Novel HCV Inter-Genotypic Recombinant Forms within the Conserved IRES Region

The surgeon and cancer research. Bruce Memorial Lecture.

Characterization of a Novel Hepatitis C Subtype, 6xj, and Its Consequences for Direct-Acting Antiviral Treatment in Yunnan, China

Profiles of human immunodeficiency virus and hepatitis C virus genotypes among human immunodeficiency virus/hepatitis C virus co-infected Burmese patients from 2016 to 2019 in Dehong Dai and Jingpo Autonomous Prefecture

Implantable devices in patients with haematological diseases.

Epigenetic mechanisms in heart development and disease.

Transmission networks of hepatitis C virus among HIV/HCV-coinfected patients in Guangdong, China

Pinocytosis and phagocytosis: the effect of size of a particulate substrate on its mode of capture by rat peritoneal macrophages cultured in vitro.

Genotypic prediction of tropism of highly diverse HIV-1 strains from Cameroon

Evolutionary Characteristics and Immune Mutation of Hepatitis C Virus Genotype 1b among Intravenous Drug Users in Mainland, China

Global distribution and prevalence of hepatitis C virus genotypes