A Mixed-Methods Study of Policymakers’ Adoption of AI to Support Use of Research Evidence: Implications for Artificial Intelligence in Prevention Policy

Policymakers are increasingly adopting artificial intelligence (AI) tools to support legislative decision-making, yet there is limited empirical understanding of how these technologies are used and the implications for evidence-based policymaking. General-purpose AI tools, such as large language models (LLMs), present both opportunities for improved efficiency and risks related to misinformation and lack of transparency. This study examines state legislators' use of AI in policymaking and introduces the AIRE Protocol (AI for Informed and Responsible Evidence-use), a structured framework for developing specialized AI tools grounded in validated evidence. We demonstrate the application of the AIRE Protocol through the development of the Results First AI Assistant, designed to enhance policymakers' access to the Results First Clearinghouse. A mixed-methods approach was used. Forty-five US state legislators participated in live interviews to assess AI adoption patterns, perceived benefits, and concerns. The AIRE Protocol guided the rapid prototyping and iterative development of the AI assistant, with input from policymakers, national policy organizations, and technical experts, resulting in tailored evidence based recommendations. While policymakers expressed interest in AI tools for improving access to information under time constraints, they also raised concerns regarding transparency, reliability, and appropriate use. Our findings suggest that AI tools tailored to policymakers' needs-developed using frameworks like AIRE-will facilitate the integration of validated evidence into legislative decision-making while addressing ethical and practical concerns associated with generalized AI solutions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Prevention Science
Published
2026-05-02
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-026-01925-z
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Mixed-Methods Study of Policymakers’ Adoption of AI to Support Use of Research Evidence: Implications for Artificial Intelligence in Prevention Policy

Michael Donovan, Taylor Scott, Elizabeth Long, Patrick O’Neill et al.
Prevention Science
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
article

A Mixed-Methods Study of Policymakers’ Adoption of AI to Support Use of Research Evidence: Implications for Artificial Intelligence in Prevention Policy

Michael Donovan, Taylor Scott, Elizabeth Long, Patrick O’Neill, Bethany Shaw, Sarah Hamel, Alex Winters, Jonathan Wright, D Max Crowley, Damon Jones, Jessica Pugel
article en

Abstract

Policymakers are increasingly adopting artificial intelligence (AI) tools to support legislative decision-making, yet there is limited empirical understanding of how these technologies are used and the implications for evidence-based policymaking. General-purpose AI tools, such as large language models (LLMs), present both opportunities for improved efficiency and risks related to misinformation and lack of transparency. This study examines state legislators' use of AI in policymaking and introduces the AIRE Protocol (AI for Informed and Responsible Evidence-use), a structured framework for developing specialized AI tools grounded in validated evidence. We demonstrate the application of the AIRE Protocol through the development of the Results First AI Assistant, designed to enhance policymakers' access to the Results First Clearinghouse. A mixed-methods approach was used. Forty-five US state legislators participated in live interviews to assess AI adoption patterns, perceived benefits, and concerns. The AIRE Protocol guided the rapid prototyping and iterative development of the AI assistant, with input from policymakers, national policy organizations, and technical experts, resulting in tailored evidence based recommendations. While policymakers expressed interest in AI tools for improving access to information under time constraints, they also raised concerns regarding transparency, reliability, and appropriate use. Our findings suggest that AI tools tailored to policymakers' needs-developed using frameworks like AIRE-will facilitate the integration of validated evidence into legislative decision-making while addressing ethical and practical concerns associated with generalized AI solutions.

Prevention Science
Pennsylvania State University (US)
National Science Foundation, Pew Charitable Trusts, William T. Grant Foundation, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Intramural Research Program
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.