
A Public Health Law Research Program “Evidence Brief” summarizes the research assessing the effect of a specific law or policy on public health. Evidence Briefs are prepared by the staff of the National Program Office. Briefs are based on systematic literature reviews conducted by highly-regarded scholars and published by credible organizations or peer-reviewed journals. Evidence Briefs digest the best available evidence, but readers should bear in mind that even the best evidence may have limitations or deficiencies. The evidence briefs are organized by topic and intervention. Each law or policy is classified as “effective,” “uncertain” or “harmful,” according to the conclusions of the expert reviewers. These are not independent conclusions of the NPO, nor do they reflect the views of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Funded by competitive grants from Public Health Law Research, each independent "Grantee Research" project seeks to build the evidence for and strengthen the use of regulatory, legal and policy solutions to improve public health. PHLR is also interested in identifying and ameliorating laws and legal practices that unintentionally harm health. As public health practitioners, policy-makers and others consider how laws influence the public's health, they need evidence to inform questions such as: How does law influence health and health behavior? Which laws have the greatest impact? Can current laws be made more effective through better enforcement, or do they require amendment?

The Public Health Law Research Program “Theory, Practice and Evidence” series is a collection of commissioned papers on the state of knowledge about the effects of important public health laws. The papers in this series assess the available evidence about the impact of public health laws, addressing the questions: What do we know? What don’t we know? What further research is needed in order to understand the effects these laws have on health? The authors, leading scholars in public health and law, critically review the literature, evaluating the strength of the evidence base by commenting on the rigor of studies conducted to date.