Do environmental systematic reviews impact policy and practice? Author perspectives on the application of their work

2022 ◽  
Vol 129 ◽  
pp. 159-167
Author(s):  
Evalynne Jacaban ◽  
Trina Rytwinski ◽  
Jessica J. Taylor ◽  
Nathan Young ◽  
Vivian M. Nguyen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Policy And Practice

scholarly journals Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register of Randomized Controlled Trials: Development and Content Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Farhad Shokraneh ◽  
Clive E Adams
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Policy ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Gis Mapping ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Review Team

Abstract Background Study-based registers facilitate systematic reviews through shortening the process for review team and reducing considerable waste during the review process. Such a register also provides new insights about trends of trials in a sub-specialty. This paper reports development and content analysis of Cochrane Schizophrenia Group’s Study-Based Register. Methods The randomized controlled trials were collected through systematic searches of major information sources. Data points were extracted, curated and classified in the register. We report trends using regression analyses in Microsoft Excel and we used GIS mapping (GunnMap 2) to visualize the geographical distribution of the origin of schizophrenia trials. Results Although only 17% of trials were registered, the number of reports form registered trials is steadily increasing and registered trials produce more reports. Clinical trial registers are main source of trial reports followed by sub-specialty journals. Schizophrenia trials have been published in 23 languages from 90 countries while 105 nations do not have any reported schizophrenia trials. Only 9.7% of trials were included in at least one Cochrane review. Pharmacotherapy is the main target of trials while trials targeting psychotherapy are increasing in a continuous rate. The number of people randomized in trials is on average 114 with 60 being the most frequent sample size. Conclusions Curated datasets within the register uncover new patterns in data that have implications for research, policy, and practice for testing new interventions in trials or systematic reviews.

Domestic Homicide: A Synthesis of Systematic Review Evidence

2021 ◽  
pp. 152483802110438
Author(s):  
Bitna Kim ◽  
Alida V. Merlo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Child Homicide ◽  
Primary Research ◽  
Domestic Homicide ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Perpetrators And Victims

Domestic homicide (DH) is the most extreme form of domestic violence (DV). There has been a growing worldwide interest in DH offenses and the characteristics of perpetrators and victims, and it is evidenced in part by the increase in the number of primary research studies in this area. The findings of a large number of the available primary literature have already been summarized into several systematic reviews. The principal purposes of this study were to identify what types and aspects of DH have been reviewed systematically (research trends), to synthesize findings from recent systematic reviews of the theoretical and empirical literature on the different types of DH (main findings), and to consider what existing reviews can tell us about the implications for policy and practice as well as future primary research (implications). The current study utilized a systematic review approach to locate systematic reviews of studies on DH. The final sample included 25 systematic review articles published from 2010 to 2020, including 12 on intimate partner homicide, eight on child homicide, and five on familicide. The main research questions varied across systematic reviews, but they included risk factors, statistics on incidence and prevalence, theories, risk assessment tools, punishment and disposition, and prevention strategies. Building on the synthesis findings, the current study concludes with suggestions for future systematic review research and implications for practice and policy efforts.

scholarly journals Feasibility and acceptability of living systematic reviews: results from a mixed-methods evaluation

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tanya Millard ◽  
Anneliese Synnot ◽  
Julian Elliott ◽  
Sally Green ◽  
Steve McDonald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Mixed Methods Evaluation ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Number Of Citations

Abstract Background Living systematic reviews (LSRs) offer an approach to keeping high-quality evidence synthesis continually up to date, so the most recent, relevant and reliable evidence can be used to inform policy and practice, resulting in improved quality of care and patient health outcomes. However, they require modifications to authoring and editorial processes and pose technical and publishing challenges. Several teams within Cochrane and the international Living Evidence Network have been piloting living systematic reviews. Methods We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation with participants involved in six LSRs (three Cochrane and three non-Cochrane). Up to three semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 participants involved with one or more of the pilot LSRs. Interviews explored participants’ experiences contributing to the LSR, barriers and facilitators to their conduct and opportunities for future development. Pilot team members also completed monthly surveys capturing time for key tasks and the number of citations screened for each review. Results Across the pilot LSRs, search frequency was monthly to three-monthly, with some using tools such as machine learning and Cochrane Crowd to screen searches. Varied approaches were used to communicate updates to readers. The number of citations screened varied widely between the reviews, from three to 300 citations per month. The amount of time spent per month by the author team on each review also varied from 5 min to 32 h. Participants were enthusiastic to be involved in the LSR pilot. They highlighted the importance of a motivated and well-organised team; the value of technology enablers to improve workflow efficiencies; the need to establish reliable and efficient processes to sustain living reviews; and the potential for saving time and effort in the long run. Participants highlighted challenges with the current publication processes, managing ongoing workload and the lack of resources to support LSRs in the long term. Conclusions Findings to date support feasibility and acceptability of LSR production. There are challenges that need to be addressed for living systematic reviews to be sustainable and have maximum value. The findings from this study will be used in discussions with the Cochrane community, key decision makers and people more broadly concerned with LSRs to identify and develop priorities for scale-up.

Criminogenic risk assessment: A meta-review and critical analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 146247452110257
Author(s):  
Seth J Prins ◽  
Adam Reich
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Predictive Performance ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Practice Recommendations ◽  
Meta Review ◽  
Criminal Legal System ◽  
Meta Analyses

A vast body of research underlies the ascendancy of criminogenic risk assessment, which was developed to predict recidivism. It is unclear, however, whether the empirical evidence supports its expansion across the criminal legal system. This meta-review thus attempts to answer the following questions: 1) How well does criminogenic risk assessment differentiate people who are at high risk of recidivism from those at low risk of recidivism? 2) How well do researchers’ conclusions about (1) match the empirical evidence? 3) Does the empirical evidence support the theory, policy, and practice recommendations that researchers make based on their conclusions? A systematic literature search identified 39 meta-analyses and systematic reviews that met inclusion criteria. Findings from these meta-analyses and systematic reviews are summarized and synthesized, and their interpretations are critically assessed. We find that criminogenic risk assessment’s predictive performance is based on inappropriate statistics, and that conclusions about the evidence are inconsistent and often overstated. Three thematic areas of inferential overreach are identified: contestable inferences from criminalization to criminality, from prediction to explanation, and from prediction to intervention. We conclude by exploring possible reasons for the mismatch between proponents’ conclusions and the evidence, and discuss implications for policy and practice.

The Perilous Road from Evidence to Policy: Five Journeys Compared

2005 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANNETTE BOAZ ◽  
RAY PAWSON
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Peer Education ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Evidence Based Policy

Comprehensive reviews of the available research are generally considered to be the cornerstone of contemporary efforts to establish ‘evidence-based policy’. This article provides an examination of the potential of this stratagem, using the case study of ‘mentoring’ programmes. Mentoring initiatives (and allied schemes such as ‘coaching’, ‘counselling’, ‘peer education’ and so on) are to be found in every corner of public policy. Researchers have been no less energetic, producing a huge body of evidence on the process and outcomes of such interventions. Reviewers, accordingly, have plenty to get their teeth into and, by now, there are numerous reports offering review-based advice on the benefits of mentoring. The article asks whether the sum total of these efforts, as represented by five contemporary reviews, is a useful tool for guiding policy and practice. Our analysis is a cause for some pessimism. We note a propensity for delivering unequivocal policy verdicts on the basis of ambiguous evidence. Even more disconcertingly, the five reviews head off on different judgemental tangents, one set of recommendations appearing to gainsay the next. The article refrains from recommending the ejection of evidence baby and policy bathwater but suggests that much closer attention needs to be paid to the explanatory scope of systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Systematiske oversikter og kvalitativ forskning

2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rigmor C. Berg ◽  
Heather Munthe-Kaas
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
English Summary ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Quantitative Evidence ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

<p>Interessen for å samle og syntetisere kvalitative studier i systematiske oversikter er voksende. Det pekes blant annet på at sammenstillinger av kvalitativ forskning har stor verdi når det gjelder potensialet til å informere politikk og praksis. Systematiske oversikter om effekt gir innsikt i hvorvidt et tiltak virker; systematiske oversikter med kvalitativ forskning gir innsikt i hvordan og hvorfor eventuelle virkninger oppstår. Nytten av denne type oversikter erkjennes nå bl.a. av internasjonale organisasjoner som Cochrane og Campbell-samarbeidene. I Cochrane-håndboka vises det til at kvalitativ forskning kan bidra med nyttig informasjon på flere måter: Kvalitative datasett kan informere, styrke, utvide og supplere systematiske oversikter om effekt av tiltak. Metodene for gjennomføring av oversikter med kvalitativ forskning er i rask utvikling, og det fins for øyeblikket ingen standard tilnærming. Når det gjelder søk etter kvalitative studier må disse ofte være bredere, men forøvrig gjelder mange av de samme prinsippene som for litteratursøk innen systematiske oversikter om effekt av tiltak. Det forskes på og debatteres om hva slags kriterier som bør benyttes i utvelgelsen av kvalitative studier og hvorvidt man skal ekskludere studier basert på metodologisk kvalitet. Det fins flere ulike måter å syntetisere resultater fra kvalitative studier på, og det er også mulig å sammenstille resultater fra både kvalitative og kvantitative studier i én analyse. De mest hyppig brukte metodene er metaetnografi og tematisk analyse.</p><p>Berg RC, Munthe-Kaas H. <strong>Systematic reviews in qualitative research</strong>. <em>Nor J Epidemiol 2013</em>; <strong>23</strong> (2): 131-139.</p><p><strong>ENGLISH SUMMARY</strong></p><p>There is growing interest in summarising and synthesising qualitative research in systematic reviews. Among other things, this indicates an increasing appreciation for the potential role of qualitative evidence in informing policy and practice. While systematic reviews of effect studies can establish whether an intervention works, systematic reviews of qualitative research can offer insights into the “how” and “why” of potential effects. The importance of such questions, and the value of systematic reviews of qualitative research, is now recognized by a number of international organizations, including the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations. The Cochrane Handbook describes four ways in which qualitative research can contribute to evidence-based practice, namely by informing, enhancing, extending, and supplementing systematic reviews of the effect of interventions. The methodology for conducting reviews of qualitative research is rapidly developing, and at present there is no standard approach. Systematic searches for qualitative research are often more broadly cast but otherwise follow many of the same principles of a literature search within a systematic review of effect. There are ongoing debates and research regarding criteria for inclusion of studies in general, and whether to include studies of low methodological quality in particular. An array of methods to synthesise qualitative evidence exists, and such evidence may also be synthesised together with quantitative evidence. Meta-ethnography and thematic analysis are the most commonly used synthesis methods.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document