Search

As a methodology designed to inform policy and practice decisions, it is particularly important to ensure that systematic reviews are shaped by those who will use them. There is a broad range of approaches for engagement of the potential users of reviews that aim to elicit their priorities and needs and incorporate these into the review design. This incorporation of their priorities and needs can create a tension between their calls for locally-specific, often rapidly-produced evidence syntheses for policy needs and the production of unbiased, generalisable, globally-relevant systematic reviews. This tension raises the question of what is a 'gold standard' review. This commentary aims to address head on this often undiscussed key challenge with regard to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: that responding to stakeholders can mean reconsidering what makes a review rigorous. The commentary proposes a new model to address these tensions that combines the production of public-good reviews, with stakeholder-driven syntheses. In this, it presents the approach taken by our team in [Anonymised] to achieve two different but complementary outputs: (i) 'public goods', namely comprehensive and generalisable systematic reviews of the evidence available for and accessible to a global audience, and (ii) locally-focussed, stakeholder-driven, pragmatically-produced syntheses for decision-making at a policy level. The designed approach incorporates balancing the formal requirements of full, published systematic reviews with engagement of national and international decision-makers. It also accommodates space to move from stakeholder engagement to co-production, where stakeholders are engaged to such an extent that they become partners in the production of the review. These approaches are integrated into the traditional steps for producing a systematic review with implications as to what constitutes a gold standard approach to synthesising evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The first international Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) conference took place in August 2016 at the Swedish Museum of Natural History in Stockholm with nearly 100 participants from 14 countries. This conference reflected and contributed to the growth of a global network of people interested in the production and use of evidence syntheses in environmental management. The conference also provided an opportunity to identify emerging themes and reflect on those ideas and perspectives to help direct future activities of the CEE and the broader community. An increasingly engaged community of practice was evident but there is uneven distribution of experience, resources, capacity, and commitment to evidence synthesis in different sectors and regions. There is much opportunity to bring academics, practitioners, and other partners together which will help to further demonstrate impact of evidence synthesis activities and enhance relevance. As the discipline evolves there is growing interest in rapid evidence synthesis but the benefits and risks of that approach remain unclear. There was also a recognition that improvements in empirical science will enhance the likelihood that more studies can be fully exploited as part of evidence synthesis. There are opportunities for capacity building, engaging the next generation (e.g., students), and enhancing connections within and beyond the CEE community to advance evidence-based environmental management. It is our desire that this paper will serve as a template for future CEE activities (i.e., where to invest resources) but also as an invitation to those that were unable to attend to participate in CEE and the evidence-based environmental management movement in whichever ways resonate with them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Systematic reviews of research are increasingly recognised as important for informing decisions across policy sectors and for setting priorities for research. Although reviews draw on international research, the host institutions and countries can focus attention on their own priorities. The uneven capacity for conducting research around the world raises questions about the capacity for conducting systematic reviews. Methods: A rapid appraisal was conducted of current capacity and capacity strengthening activities for conducting systematic reviews in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A systems approach to analysis considered the capacity of individuals nested within the larger units of research teams, institutions that fund, support, and/or conduct systematic reviews, and systems that support systematic reviewing internationally. Results: International systematic review networks, and their support organisations, are dominated by members from high-income countries. The largest network comprising a skilled workforce and established centres is the Cochrane Collaboration. Other networks, although smaller, provide support for systematic reviews addressing questions beyond effective clinical practice which require a broader range of methods. Capacity constraints were apparent at the levels of individuals, review teams, organisations, and system wide. Constraints at each level limited the capacity at levels nested within them. Skills training for individuals had limited utility if not allied to opportunities for review teams to practice the skills. Skills development was further constrained by language barriers, lack of support from academic organisations, and the limitations of wider systems for communication and knowledge management. All networks hosted some activities for strengthening the capacities of individuals and teams, although these were usually independent of core academic programmes and traditional career progression. Even rarer were efforts to increase demand for systematic reviews and to strengthen links between producers and potential users of systematic reviews. Conclusions: Limited capacity for conducting systematic reviews within LMICs presents a major technical and social challenge to advancing their health systems. Effective capacity in LMICs can be spread through investing effort at multiple levels simultaneously, supported by countries (predominantly high-income countries) with established skills and experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Wonca Working Party for Women and Family Medicine (WWPWFM) was organized in 2001 with the following objectives: to identify the key issues for women doctors; to review Wonca policies and procedures for equity and transparency; to provide opportunities to network at meetings and through the group's listserve and website; and to promote women doctors' participation in Wonca initiatives. A series of workshops was held in Durban in 2001 and in Orlando in 2004 where action plans were formulated. In August 2006, 25 women family physicians from 26 countries had an intensive meeting in at the McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada. Through the meeting, the WWPWFM, the main organizer, came up with the Hamilton Equity Recommendations (HER Statement) and a WWPWFM scientific program for the 18th Wonca World Conference in Singapore. The HER Statement urges the general practice/family medicine organizations of the world that are constituted as the World Organization of National Colleges, Academies and Academic Associations of General Practitioners/Family Physicians (Wonca) to adopt four fundamental recommendations regarding gender equity: 1. Enshrine the principle of gender equity within Wonca governance by amending the Wonca Bylaws and Regulations, as proposed by the WWPWFM. 2. Implement gender equity in all activities of Wonca, in particular the scientific programs of its triennial, regional, and rural meetings. 3. Promulgate the pivotal role of gender as a key determinant of health. 4. Promote the equitable inclusion and advancement of women general practitioners/family physicians in Wonca The Women's Track for the Wonca Singapore 2007 meeting shall provide concrete opportunities for the development of leaders and the advancement of women general practitioners/family physicians in Wonca. The proposed programme will ensure women's participation in the Singapore conference and is in keeping with Wonca's commitment to the global consensus supporting the elimination of gender inequality as an important prerequisite for development both of organizations and of nations [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]