scholarly journals A practical conservation tool to combine diverse types of evidence for transparent evidence-based decision-making

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alec Philip Christie ◽  
Harriet Downey ◽  
Winifred F Frick ◽  
Matthew Grainger ◽  
David O'Brien ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Scientific Information ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Decision Context ◽  
Combining Evidence ◽  
Practitioner Knowledge ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making ◽  
Conservation Decisions

Making the reasoning and evidence behind conservation decisions clear and transparent is a key challenge for the conservation community. Similarly, combining evidence from diverse sources (e.g., scientific vs non-scientific information) into decision-making is also difficult. Our group of conservation researchers and practitioners has co-produced an intuitive tool and template (Evidence-to-Decision (E2D) tool: www.evidence2decisiontool.com) to guide practitioners through a structured process to transparently document and report the evidence and reasoning behind decisions. The tool has three major steps: 1. Define the Decision Context; 2. Gather Evidence; and 3. Make an Evidence-Based Decision. In each step, practitioners enter information (e.g., from the scientific literature, practitioner knowledge and experience, and costs) to inform their decision-making and document their reasoning. The tool packages this information into a customised downloadable report (or is documented if using the offline template), which we hope can stimulate the exchange of information on decisions within and between organisations. By enabling practitioners to revisit how and why past decisions were made, and integrate diverse forms of evidence, we believe our open-access tool’s template can help increase the transparency and quality of decision-making in conservation.

Publication Bias in Science

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew W. Brown ◽  
Tapan S. Mehta ◽  
David B. Allison
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Teaching Strategies ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Systematic Difference ◽  
Causal Effects ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making ◽  
Quantities Of Interest

When we rely on science to inform decisions about matters such as the environment, teaching strategies, economics, government, and medicine, evidence-based decision-making can only be as reliable as the totality of the science itself. We must avoid distortions of the scientific literature such as publication bias, which is an expected systematic difference between estimates of associations, causal effects, or other quantities of interest compared to the actual values of those quantities, caused by differences between research that is published and the totality of research conducted. Publication bias occurs when the probability of publishing a result of a study is influenced by the result obtained. It appears to be common and can produce misleading conclusions about interventions, make effects appear greater than they are, lead to irreproducible research, and ultimately undermine the credibility of science in general. Methods to detect publication bias and steps to reduce it are discussed.

Statistical formats to optimize evidence-based decision making: A behavioral approach

2014 ◽  
Vol 67 (5) ◽  
pp. 790-794 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iván Arribas ◽  
Irene Comeig ◽  
Amparo Urbano ◽  
José Vila
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Behavioral Approach ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

scholarly journals Implementing evidence-based assessment and selection in organizations: A review and an agenda for future research

2020 ◽  
pp. 204138662098341
Author(s):  
Marvin Neumann ◽  
A. Susan M. Niessen ◽  
Rob R. Meijer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Self Determination Theory ◽  
Assessment Methods ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Assessment Practice ◽  
Outcome Feedback ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

In personnel- and educational selection, a substantial gap exists between research and practice, since evidence-based assessment instruments and decision-making procedures are underutilized. We provide an overview of studies that investigated interventions to encourage the use of evidence-based assessment methods, or factors related to their use. The most promising studies were grounded in self-determination theory. Training and autonomy in the design of evidence-based assessment methods were positively related to their use, while negative stakeholder perceptions decreased practitioners’ intentions to use evidence-based assessment methods. Use of evidence-based decision-making procedures was positively related to access to such procedures, information to use it, and autonomy over the procedure, but negatively related to receiving outcome feedback. A review of the professional selection literature showed that the implementation of evidence-based assessment was hardly discussed. We conclude with an agenda for future research on encouraging evidence-based assessment practice.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Decision-Making on Medical Technologies in China, Japan, and Singapore

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. S12-S17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon G. Liu ◽  
Takashi Fukuda ◽  
Chien Earn Lee ◽  
Vivian Chen ◽  
Qiang Zheng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Medical Technologies ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making

PNS72 Charting the Progress of HTA in Asia: Are We Ready for Evidence Based Decision-Making?

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. S186
Author(s):  
R. Kumar ◽  
C. Suharlim ◽  
A. Amaris Caruso ◽  
C. Gilmartin ◽  
M. Mehra ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Evidence Based Decision Making
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document