An Emerging Framework for Including Different Types of Evidence in Systematic Reviews for Public Policy

Abstract

Evidence-informed policy and practice call on research addressing a broad range of research questions: evaluating the need for, and development, implementation, acceptability and effectiveness of interventions. Synthesizing this evidence requires methods that integrate the findings from diverse study designs. This article reports the development of a new model of research synthesis for this purpose. On completion of a series of substantive reviews, methodological reflections addressed: the interrelationship between review questions, relevant theory and values within the review process; methodological similarities and differences with more conventional reviews of effectiveness; the added value in terms of conclusions and specific recommendations; and the relevance to public policy.

Keywords

Relevance (law)Systematic reviewEvidence-based policyPsychological interventionManagement scienceValue (mathematics)Public policyProcess (computing)Development theoryEngineering ethicsPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceMedicineMEDLINEAlternative medicineEconomicsEngineeringEconomic growth

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

Balancing the evidence: incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews

Alan Pearson

Abstract Techniques for the systematic review of evidence of effectiveness are now well established. Health‐care professionals argue, however, for a need to recognise evidence o...

2004 JBI Reports 316 citations

Better Information for Better Health Care: The Evidence-based Practice Center Program and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

David Atkins

To provide decision makers with the best available evidence, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality established a network of Evidence-based Practice Centers across North...

2005 Annals of Internal Medicine 126 citations

A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency

Mai Pham , Andrijana Rajić , Judy Greig +3 more

Background The scoping review has become an increasingly popular approach for synthesizing research evidence. It is a relatively new approach for which a universal study definit...

2014 Research Synthesis Methods 2853 citations

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

A. Liberati , Doug Altman , Jennifer Tetzlaff +7 more

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and tra...

2009 BMJ 16839 citations

Now that we’re here, where are we? The JBI approach to evidence-based healthcare 20 years on

Zoe Jordan , Zachary Munn , Edoardo Aromataris +1 more

Approaching almost 20 years of activity (and 10 years this year since the Joanna Briggs Institute, JBI, model of evidence-based healthcare was first published), the JBI remains ...

2015 International Journal of Evidence-Bas... 14 citations

Publication Info

Year: 2005
Type: article
Volume: 11
Issue: 4
Pages: 428-446
Citations: 209
Access: Closed

External Links

View on DOI.org

Social Impact

Altmetric

An Emerging Framework for Including Different Types of Evidence in Systematic Reviews for Public Policy

PlumX Metrics

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

209

OpenAlex

Cite This

APA Style

                            
                                
                                    Sandy Oliver, 
                                
                                    Angela Harden, 
                                
                                    Rebecca Rees
                                
                                et al.
                            
                            (2005). 
                            An Emerging Framework for Including Different Types of Evidence in Systematic Reviews for Public Policy. 
                            Evaluation
                            , 11
                            (4)
                            , 428-446.
                            https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389005059383
                        

Identifiers

DOI: 10.1177/1356389005059383