scholarly journals The strategic use of evidence and gap maps to build evidence architecture

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard White ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Working Paper ◽  
Strategic Use Of Evidence ◽  
Synthesis Approach ◽  
Policy Question

Mapping is an evidence synthesis approach that aims to describe what research evidence is available that is relevant to a particular research or policy question. It has emerged as an important way to make evidence available to decision-makers. The CEDIL Methods Working Paper 5, ‘The strategic use of evidence and gap maps to build evidence architecture’, describes this approach.

scholarly journals The NCCMT’s dynamic model for evidence-informed public health

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
E Clark ◽  
S Neil-Sztramko ◽  
M Dobbins
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Local Data ◽  
Public Health Decision ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Political Preferences ◽  
Health Decision ◽  
Structured Approach

Abstract Issue It is well accepted that public health decision makers should use the best available research evidence in their decision-making process. However, research evidence alone is insufficient to inform public health decision making. Description of the problem As new challenges to public health emerge, there can be a paucity of high quality research evidence to inform decisions on new topics. Public health decision makers must combine various sources of evidence with their public health expertise to make evidence-informed decisions. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) has developed a model which combines research evidence with other critical sources of evidence that can help guide decision makers in evidence-informed decision making. Results The NCCMT's model for evidence-informed public health combines findings from research evidence with local data and context, community and political preferences and actions and evidence on available resources. The model has been widely used across Canada and worldwide, and has been integrated into many public health organizations' decision-making processes. The model is also used for teaching an evidence-informed public health approach in Masters of Public Health programs around the globe. The model provides a structured approach to integrating evidence from several critical sources into public health decision making. Use of the model helps ensure that important research, contextual and preference information is sought and incorporated. Lessons Next steps for the model include development of a tool to facilitate synthesis of evidence across all four domains. Although Indigenous knowledges are relevant for public health decision making and should be considered as part of a complete assessment the current model does not capture Indigenous knowledges. Key messages Decision making in public health requires integrating the best available evidence, including research findings, local data and context, community and political preferences and available resources. The NCCMT’s model for evidence-informed public health provides a structured approach to integrating evidence from several critical sources into public health decision making.

scholarly journals An evidence synthesis approach to estimating the incidence of seasonal influenza in the Netherlands

2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott A. McDonald ◽  
Anne M. Presanis ◽  
Daniela De Angelis ◽  
Wim van der Hoek ◽  
Mariette Hooiveld ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Seasonal Influenza ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Synthesis Approach

Collaborative Practice: A Strategy to Improve the Relevance of Health Services Research

2002 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 18-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Brazil ◽  
Stuart MacLeod ◽  
Brian Guest
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Services Research ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Collaborative Practice ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Healthcare Decision ◽  
Services Research ◽  
Collaborative Relationships

Health services research has emerged as a tool for decision makers to make services more effective and efficient. While its value as a basis for decision making is well established, the incorporation of such evidence into decision making remains inconsistent. To this end, strengthening collaborative relationships between researchers and healthcare decision makers has been identified as a significant strategy for putting research evidence into practice.

Decision-makers and the usefulness of research evidence in policy implementation—a case study from Lao PDR

2005 ◽  
Vol 61 (6) ◽  
pp. 1291-1299 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Tomson ◽  
C. Paphassarang ◽  
K. Jönsson ◽  
K. Houamboun ◽  
K. Akkhavong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Policy Implementation ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Lao Pdr ◽  
Decision Makers

scholarly journals Evidence synthesis software

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 140-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sophie Elizabeth Park ◽  
James Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Open Source Software ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Bias Assessment ◽  
Published Research ◽  
Geographical Space ◽  
Synthesis Approach

It can be challenging to decide which evidence synthesis software to choose when doing a systematic review. This article discusses some of the important questions to consider in relation to the chosen method and synthesis approach. Software can support researchers in a range of ways. Here, a range of review conditions and software solutions. For example, facilitating contemporaneous collaboration across time and geographical space; in-built bias assessment tools; and line-by-line coding for qualitative textual analysis. EPPI-Reviewer is a review software for research synthesis managed by the EPPI-centre, UCL Institute of Education. EPPI-Reviewer has text mining automation technologies. Version 5 supports data sharing and re-use across the systematic review community. Open source software will soon be released. EPPI-Centre will continue to offer the software as a cloud-based service. The software is offered via a subscription with a one-month (extendible) trial available and volume discounts for ‘site licences’. It is free to use for Cochrane and Campbell reviews. The next EPPI-Reviewer version is being built in collaboration with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence using ‘surveillance’ of newly published research to support ‘living’ iterative reviews. This is achieved using a combination of machine learning and traditional information retrieval technologies to identify the type of research each new publication describes and determine its relevance for a particular review, domain or guideline. While the amount of available knowledge and research is constantly increasing, the ways in which software can support the focus and relevance of data identification are also developing fast. Software advances are maximising the opportunities for the production of relevant and timely reviews.

scholarly journals What influences PhD graduate trajectories during the degree: a research-based policy agenda

2020 ◽  
Vol 80 (6) ◽  
pp. 1011-1043
Author(s):  
Lynn McAlpine ◽  
Montserrat Castello ◽  
Kirsi Pyhaltö
Keyword(s):  
Research Evidence ◽  
Doctoral Programs ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Critical Research ◽  
Research Gaps ◽  
The Past ◽  
Timely Completion ◽  
Systematized Review ◽  
Institutional Contexts ◽  
Doctoral Experience

AbstractDuring the past two decades, PhD graduate numbers have increased dramatically with graduates viewed by governments as a means to advance the knowledge economy and international competitiveness. Concurrently, universities have also invested in policies to monitor satisfaction, retention, and timely completion—and researchers have expanded the study of PhD experience. We, as such researchers, have increasingly received invitations from university decision-makers to present research evidence which might guide their doctoral programs. Their interest provoked us to do a qualitative systematized review of research on doctoral experience—seeking evidence of practices that influenced retention, satisfaction, and completion. The result contributes a synthesis of the critical research evidence that could be used to inform doctoral education policy. We also demonstrate the possibilities of such evidence by suggesting some potential recommendations, while recognizing that there is no direct relationship between research results and their transformation into particular institutional contexts in ways that enhance doctoral experience. We hope our initiative will be taken up and extended by other researchers, particularly the research gaps we note, so we can collectively support the use of research evidence to influence both doctoral policies and practices—with the goal to better prepare PhD researchers for their futures and better support their supervisors.

Programme Approach to Managing Informed Commissioning

2001 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 159-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Miller ◽  
Luke Vale
Keyword(s):  
Research Evidence ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Organizational Structures ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Small Samples ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Health Board ◽  
Marginal Analysis ◽  
Barriers To Implementation ◽  
Common Barriers

The objective of this paper is to examine possible organizational reasons for why UK NHS commissioners have not adopted programme budgeting and marginal analysis (PBMA). This is despite increasing evidence of discontent with current commissioning and priority-setting processes, increasing research evidence demonstrating the potential of PBMA and support for the principles of PBMA. Two separate semistructured surveys of the views of commissioning decision-makers on the use of PBMA were carried out at Grampian Health Board and Newcastle & North Tyneside Health Authority. Twenty-nine decision-makers were interviewed. Both surveys found common barriers to implementation of PBMA, described by respondents as ‘institutional inertia’. These were the reactive rather than proactive environment; the fear of ‘unnecessary’ explicitness; an aversion to unilateral innovation in the current NHS environment; and the demand for concrete evaluation evidence. It is concluded that these qualitative surveys have small samples and cannot claim to be representative. It may be significant that many issues were common to both surveys carried out separately in organizations. It is unlikely that NHS commissioning will independently adopt techniques such as PBMA, given the current commissioning environment and organizational structures. Implementation strategies and future research on such commissioning innovations may need to focus on institutions as well as the interventions.

scholarly journals Rapid evidence synthesis approach for limits on the search date: how rapid could it be?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chang Xu ◽  
Ke Ju ◽  
Lifeng Lin ◽  
Pengli Jia ◽  
Joey S. W. Kwong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Synthesis Approach

scholarly journals Estimating the number of people with hepatitis C virus who have ever injected drugs and have yet to be diagnosed: an evidence synthesis approach for Scotland

Addiction ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 110 (8) ◽  
pp. 1287-1300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa C. Prevost ◽  
Anne M. Presanis ◽  
Avril Taylor ◽  
David J. Goldberg ◽  
Sharon J. Hutchinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hepatitis C Virus ◽  
Hepatitis C ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Synthesis Approach
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document