Policy Surveillance: the Future of Scientific Legal Mapping.

“政策监督”是指“持续的、系统的收集、分析、解释和 传播关于公共卫生法律和政策的特定主体的信息“(Chriqui， O‘Connor和Chaloupka，2011)。政策监督产生可靠的纵向数据 评估法律对健康的影响；它还可以提高公众和政策制定者对 法律趋势，并支持传播有希望的和以证据为基础的政策创新。 美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)支持发展政策监测 计划，通过NIAAA的酒精政策信息系统(APIs)和国家癌症 学院的班级。最近，NIDA资助了两项政策监测的启动 计划、处方药滥用政策体系(PDAPS)和药物滥用政策 系统(DAP)。疾控中心一直在增加对政策监督活动的支持， 罗伯特·伍德·约翰逊基金会资助了一项政策监督计划，以提供 方法和技术援助，并维持LawAtlas.org，这是一项一般卫生政策 监控入口。 随着越来越多的研究人员和消费者进入该领域-来自州、联邦和 国际一级和私营工业.术语和方法的统一 标准，并就任何必要的治理机制达成共识，这对于确保 继续发展和采用这一重要的科学进程及其有价值的产品。至 为了满足这些需求，我们建议召开一次30-35人应邀出席的会议， 代表来自研究、技术和实践的实践的主要利益相关者； 编写、出版和分发至少一份总结讨论情况的报告 在与会者之间达成共识；并制定一年的协作计划 进一步的合作和凝聚力。

“Policy surveillance” is the “ongoing, systematic collection, analysis, interpretation and dissemination of information about a given body of public health law and policy” (Chriqui, O'Connor, and Chaloupka 2011). Policy surveillance produces reliable longitudinal data for evaluating the health effects of laws; it can also increase public and policymaker awareness of trends in the law, and support diffusion of promising and evidence-based policy innovations. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) supported the development of policy surveillance programs, through NIAAA’s Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS) and the National Cancer Institute’s CLASS. More recently, NIDA has funded the launch of two policy surveillance programs, the Prescription Drug Abuse Policy System (PDAPS) and the Drug Abuse Policy System (DAPS). CDC has been increasing its support for policy surveillance activities, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has funded a Policy Surveillance Program to provide methodological and technical assistance, and maintain LawAtlas.org, a general health policy surveillance portal. As more and more researchers and consumers enter the field — from the state, federal and international levels and in private industry — harmonization of terms, methodological standards, and consensus on any needed governance mechanisms is valuable to ensure continued growth and adoption of this important scientific process and its valuable products. To meet these needs, we propose to convene one conference of 30-35 invited attendees who represent the practice’s primary stakeholders from across research, technology and practice; develop, publish and disseminate at least one report that summarizes the discussion and consensus reached among attendees; and establish a one-year plan of collaborative work towards further cooperation and cohesion.