Maximising the availability and use of high-quality evidence for policymaking: collaborative, targeted and efficient evidence reviews

Abstract

A number of barriers have been identified to getting evidence into policy. In particular, a lack of policy relevance and lack of timeliness have been identified as causing tension between researchers and policy makers. Rapid reviews are used increasingly as an approach to address timeliness, however, there is a lack of consensus on the most effective review methods and they do not necessarily address the need of policy makers. In the course of our work with the Scottish Government's Review of maternity and neonatal services we developed a new approach to evidence synthesis, which this paper will describe. We developed a standardised approach to produce collaborative, targeted and efficient evidence reviews for policy making. This approach aimed to ensure the reviews were policy relevant, high quality and up-to-date, and which were presented in a consistent, transparent, and easy to access format. The approach involved the following stages: 1) establishing a review team with expertise both in the topic and in systematic reviewing, 2) clarifying the review questions with policy makers and subject experts (i.e., health professionals, service user representatives, researchers) who acted as review sponsors, 3) developing review protocols to systematically identify quantitative and qualitative review-level evidence on effectiveness, sustainability and acceptability; if review level evidence was not available, primary studies were sought, 4) agreeing a framework to structure the analysis of the reviews around a consistent set of key concepts and outcomes; in this case a published framework for maternal and newborn care was used, 5) developing an iterative process between policy makers, reviewers and review sponsors, 6) rapid searches and retrieval of literature, 7) analysis of identified literature which was mapped to the framework and included review sponsor input, 8) production of recommendations mapped to the agreed framework and presented as 'summary topsheets' in a consistent and easy to read format. Our approach has drawn on different components of pre-existing rapid review methodology to provide a rigorous and pragmatic approach to rapid evidence synthesis. Additionally, the use of a framework to map the evidence helped structure the review questions, expedited the analysis and provided a consistent template for recommendations, which took into account the policy context. We therefore propose that our approach (described in this paper) can be described as producing collaborative, targeted and efficient evidence reviews for policy makers.

Pre-service and in-service education and training for maternal and newborn care providers in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence review and gap analysis

“…A rapid systematic review of the literature was conducted and took a collaborative, targeted and efficient approach which was developed in conjunction with policymakers (Gavine et al, 2018). The protocol for the review was developed in conjunction with a Technical Advisory Group and is available upon request.…”

Specialty COPD care during COVID-19: patient and clinician perspectives on remote delivery

“…In both cases, participation was limited to UK-based respondents. Because of restrictions on accessing NHS or professional organisations for research collaboration during the COVID- 19 Open access researcher developed a coding framework based on the data and thematically coded all responses; a second independently coded 10% (n=13) of the responses according to this framework. There was a high degree of agreement between the two researchers.…”

“…The briefing document was informed by a rapid literature review which followed recommended methods for searching, screening, data extraction and synthesis. [18][19][20][21] In the first round, participants were asked to rate the appropriateness of delivering various COPD-related care activities remotely, again based on NICE standards, 12 using a 9-point scale, from 1 (not at all appropriate) to 9 (highly appropriate). Care activities related to both planned and unplanned specialty care (table 1).…”

Asking different questions: A call to action for research to improve the quality of care for every woman, every child

“…The involvement of end users, and particularly the political will within system hierarchies in identifying problems and solutions provides vital insights and increases the likelihood that they will be relevant and appropriate for large‐scale implementation . Policymakers’ involvement should be part of the assessment criteria of any research proposal and policy‐level implementation should be considered in the dissemination of research findings …”