Methodological Briefs on Evidence Synthesis Brief 1: Overview

Innocenti Research Briefs, 2020

This brief has undergone an internal and external peer review. The text has not been edited to official publication standards and UNICEF accepts no responsibility for errors. Extracts from this publication may be freely reproduced with due acknowledgement. Requests to use larger portions or the full publication should be addressed to the Communication Unit at <[email protected]>. To consult and download the Methodological Briefs on Evidence Synthesis and a glossary of key terms, visit the website <www.unicef-irc.org>.

Innocenti Research Briefs, 2020

This brief has undergone an internal and external peer review. The text has not been edited to official publication standards and UNICEF accepts no responsibility for errors. Extracts from this publication may be freely reproduced with due acknowledgement. Requests to use larger portions or the full publication should be addressed to the Communication Unit at <[email protected]>. To consult and download the Methodological Briefs on Evidence Synthesis and a glossary of key terms, visit the website <www.unicef-irc.org>.

Innocenti Research Briefs, 2020

This brief has undergone an internal and external peer review. The text has not been edited to official publication standards and UNICEF accepts no responsibility for errors. Extracts from this publication may be freely reproduced with due acknowledgement. Requests to use larger portions or the full publication should be addressed to the Communication Unit at <[email protected]>. To consult and download the Methodological Briefs on Evidence Synthesis and a glossary of key terms, visit the website <www.unicef-irc.org>.

Innocenti Research Briefs, 2020

This series of eight briefs, produced by the UNICEF Office of Research -Innocenti, is intended to provide guidance on how to undertake, commission and manage evidence synthesis products such as systematic reviews, rapid evidence assessments and evidence gap maps. Evidence synthesis can play an important role in UNICEF's knowledge management and evidence translation efforts by collating knowledge from multiple studies on what interventions work, and why and how they work. It makes research more accessible and therefore can contribute to evidence-informed programming and policy decisions. The primary audience for these briefs is professionals, including UNICEF staff, who conduct, commission or interpret research and evaluation findings in development contexts to make decisions about policy, programming and advocacy. These briefs cover topics including: What is evidence synthesis? What kinds of questions can evidence synthesis products help to answer and how can they contribute to decision-making? How to design and undertake a systematic review, a rapid evidence assessment or an evidence gap map The future of evidence synthesis and key innovations for making the process faster and more efficient These briefs have been written by Shivit Bakrania with input from some of the world's leading evidence synthesis experts. The other briefs in this series can be accessed at <www.unicef-irc.org>. The Office of Research -Innocenti is UNICEF's dedicated research centre. It undertakes research on emerging or current issues in order to inform the strategic direction, policies and programmes of UNICEF and its partners, shape global debates on child rights and development, and inform the global research and policy agenda for all children, and particularly for the most vulnerable. Publications produced by UNICEF Innocenti are contributions to a global debate on children and may not necessarily reflect UNICEF policies or approaches. The views expressed are those of the author. UNICEF Innocenti receives financial support from the Government of Italy, while funding for specific projects is also provided by other governments, international institutions and private sources, including UNICEF National Committees. For further information and to download this and other publications, please visit the website <www.unicef-irc.org>.

Innocenti Research Briefs, 2020

This series of eight briefs, produced by the UNICEF Office of Research -Innocenti, is intended to provide guidance on how to undertake, commission and manage evidence synthesis products such as systematic reviews, rapid evidence assessments and evidence gap maps. Evidence synthesis can play an important role in UNICEF's knowledge management and evidence translation efforts by collating knowledge from multiple studies on what interventions work, and why and how they work. It makes research more accessible and therefore can contribute to evidence-informed programming and policy decisions. The primary audience for these briefs is professionals, including UNICEF staff, who conduct, commission or interpret research and evaluation findings in development contexts to make decisions about policy, programming and advocacy. These briefs cover topics including: What is evidence synthesis? What kinds of questions can evidence synthesis products help to answer and how can they contribute to decision-making? How to design and undertake a systematic review, a rapid evidence assessment or an evidence gap map The future of evidence synthesis and key innovations for making the process faster and more efficient These briefs have been written by Shivit Bakrania with input from some of the world's leading evidence synthesis experts. The other briefs in this series can be accessed at <www.unicef-irc.org>. The Office of Research -Innocenti is UNICEF's dedicated research centre. It undertakes research on emerging or current issues in order to inform the strategic direction, policies and programmes of UNICEF and its partners, shape global debates on child rights and development, and inform the global research and policy agenda for all children, and particularly for the most vulnerable. Publications produced by UNICEF Innocenti are contributions to a global debate on children and may not necessarily reflect UNICEF policies or approaches. The views expressed are those of the author. UNICEF Innocenti receives financial support from the Government of Italy, while funding for specific projects is also provided by other governments, international institutions and private sources, including UNICEF National Committees. For further information and to download this and other publications, please visit the website <www.unicef-irc.org>.

Systematic Reviews

This paper is the initial Position Statement of Evidence Synthesis International, a new partnership of organizations that produce, support and use evidence synthesis around the world. The paper (i) argues for the importance of synthesis as a research exercise to clarify what is known from research evidence to inform policy, practice and personal decision making; (ii) discusses core issues for research synthesis such as the role of research evidence in decision making, the role of perspectives, participation and democracy in research and synthesis as a core component of evidence ecosystems; (iii) argues for 9 core principles for ESI on the nature and role of research synthesis; and (iv) lists the 5 main goals of ESI as a coordinating partnership for promoting and enabling the production and use of research synthesis.

Although health, development, and environment challenges are interconnected, evidence remains fractured across sectors due to methodological and conceptual differences in research and practice. Aligned methods are needed to support Sustainable Development Goal advances and similar agendas. The Bridge Collaborative, an emergent research-practice collaboration, presents principles and recommendations that help harmonize methods for evidence generation and use. Recommendations were generated in the context of designing and evaluating evidence of impact for interventions related to five global challenges (stabilizing the global climate, making food production sustainable, decreasing air pollution and respiratory disease, improving sanitation and water security, and solving hunger and malnutrition) and serve as a starting point for further iteration and testing in a broader set of contexts and disciplines. We adopted six principles and emphasize three methodological recommendations: (1) creation of compatible results chains, (2) consideration of all relevant types of evidence, and (3) evaluation of strength of evidence using a unified rubric. We provide detailed suggestions for how these recommendations can be applied in practice, streamlining efforts to apply multi-objective approaches and/or synthesize evidence in multidisciplinary or transdisciplinary teams. These recommendations advance the necessary process of reconciling existing evidence standards in health, development, and environment, and initiate a common basis for integrated evidence generation and use in research, practice, and policy design.

2023

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2021

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

This article proposes a new approach to assessing evidence during a systematic evidence review aiming to inform international development policy. Drawing lessons from a number of social science systematic evidence reviews, the article identifies how the method’s limiting perspective on evidence (including the exclusive focus on ‘gold standard’ empirical information) has serious disadvantages for the usability of evidence reviews for policy. This article aims to provide an alternative framework that allows for a less exclusionary, yet policy-practical, way of assessing evidence. We propose four perspectives on evidence, appropriate for different stages in the policy process: principle when setting or prioritising broad policy goals, plausibility when assessing specific future policies, proof when evaluating past policies and possibility when striving for innovation and allowing exchange of ideas.