Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Advocacy: translating injury research into policy
  1. Susan Scavo Gallagher1,
  2. Theresa H Cruz2,
  3. Megan L Ranney3
  1. 1Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine 136 Harrison Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
  2. 2Department of Pediatrics, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
  3. 3Rhode Island Hospital, Alpert Medical School, Brown University—Injury Prevention Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Theresa H Cruz, Department of Pediatrics, University of New Mexico, MSC 11 6145, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA; thcruz{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Advocacy is critical to the passage of injury prevention policies. We need look no further than motor vehicle safety laws and regulations to see the effect that such policies can have on injury morbidity and mortality. Policies can also influence research directions, funding priorities and organisational practices.

In order to make sound policy, decision-makers need succinct, accurate and timely information. Policymakers and their staff may not read scientific journals, or know who to call for advice, but establishing personal contact can facilitate the use of scientific evidence.1 Educating policymakers about the science of injury and violence prevention, and advocating for the resources to support research and implementation, are essential but not sufficient. Advocacy also involves the broad discussion of possible solutions to problems.

Injury and violence prevention researchers and practitioners are in the best position to inform policymakers about injury prevention policy solutions and …

View Full Text


  • Contributors SSG: led the writing. SSG and THC: conceptualised the paper. All authors contributed substantially to the writing.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.