Search

To maximise the potential impact and acceptability of EIDM capacity building, there is a need for programmes to coordinate their remits within existing systems, playing both 'insider' and 'outsider' roles. Through a review of the South African evidence-policy landscape and analysis of a stakeholder event that brought together EIDM role players, this paper illustrates how one capacity-building programme navigated its position within the national evidence-policy interface. It identifies strategies for improving the acceptability and potential effectiveness of donor-funded EIDM capacity-building activities: understanding the evidence-policy interface, incorporating programmes into the decision-making infrastructure (being an 'insider'), whilst retaining an element of neutrality (being an 'outsider').

Decision makers' capacity to use evidence is a key component of evidence-informed decision making (EIDM) at a policy level. This paper describes a unique combination of EIDM workshops and mentoring to build decision makers' capacity to use evidence. It reflects how the deliberate design of sequential workshop and mentoring capacity-building activities enhanced programme effects and reports on the design features that we believe have most contributed to the observed effects. We have found that this combined approach is most effective when it is underpinned by a relationship-building theory of change and remains flexible and responsive to delivering on the needs of participants, and when it is delivered in a timely manner by partners who have been carefully paired with participants based on required expertise.

The effective use of public policy to reduce poverty and inequality in southern Africa requires an increased use of research evidence to inform decision making. There is an absence of clear evidence as to how best to encourage evidence-informed decision making, and how to build capacity among decision makers in the use of research. This paper proposes a demand-focused approach for increasing the use of evidence in policy, presenting strategies supporting "pull" activities and closer linkages and exchanges between producers and users. The paper shares for discussion a people-focused theory of change for building capacity to use research evidence amongst policy makers in southern Africa.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As part of the Global Evidence Summit in Cape Town in September 2017, Prof Ruth Stewart gave the keynote addressing the question of 'Do evidence networks make a difference?'. The following text is based closely on that opening address. She outlines how evidence networks make a difference by building our shared understanding across the evidence ecosystem, enable growth in our shared capacities, and enable a potential and readiness for change. In this article she provides additional information supporting each of these three ways in which evidence networks make a difference, as well as elaborating on how her work, and that of her Centre at the University of Johannesburg, is closely aligned with the production and use of evidence synthesis. She makes a strong case for her central argument: 'If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Conducting a systematic review in social policy is a resource-intensive process in terms of time and funds. It is thus important to understand the scope of the evidence base of a topic area prior to conducting a synthesis of primary research in order to maximize these resources. One approach to conserving resources is to map out the available evidence prior to undertaking a traditional synthesis. A few examples of this approach exist in the form of gap maps, overviews of reviews, and systematic maps supported by social policy and systematic review agencies alike. Despite this growing call for alternative approaches to systematic reviews, it is still common for systematic review teams to embark on a traditional in-depth review only. Objectives: This article describes a three-stage approach to systematic reviewing that was applied to a systematic review focusing in interventions for smallholder farmers in Africa. We argue that this approach proved useful in helping us to understand the evidence base. Results: By applying preliminary steps as part of a three-stage approach, we were able to maximize the resources needed to conduct a traditional systematic review on a more focused research question. This enabled us to identify and fill real knowledge gaps, build on work that had already been done, and avoid wasting resources on areas of work that would have no useful outcome. It also facilitated meaningful engagement between the review team and our key policy stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Relevant systematic reviews and impact evaluations were systematically sought and described in order to assess the size and nature of the evidence-base about the effectiveness of interventions for smallholder farmers in Africa. A total of 21 relevant systematic reviews and 415 reports of impact evaluations were identified. This paper describes this African evidence-base in terms of the interventions and outcomes assessed, and the geographical spread of the primary research across the continent. Gaps in the evidence-base are identified and recommendations made for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The gap between what is known and what is done about public health (the evidence-practice gap) needs addressing. One solution may be through mixed and participatory training in accessing and appraising research. Approach: Residential workshops trained policy-makers, practitioners and researchers from seven southern-African countries in evidence-based decision-making for HIV prevention. They included training in accessing, critiquing and summarizing research, whilst remaining responsive to the priorities of the participants. Reflections: Drawing on the participants' feedback and our observations, we reflected on how these workshops may have addressed the evidence-practice gap. We identified three areas: access to research, understanding of research and the relevance of research. The workshops enabled a small group of people to access relevant research in a timely manner. However, more needs to be done to disseminate research findings appropriately as any long-term impact will be affected by the political and economic context in which participants work. We are confident that the participants went away with increased understanding of the purposes and processes of research, but for research to make a difference, the research community needs to emphasise more the publication of research findings written for potential users. The workshops were most successful in influencing researchers to consider bridging the evidence-practice gap by producing more relevant research , applicable to policy-makers and practitioners. Conclusion: This intensive intervention has the potential to reduce the evidence-practice gap for HIV prevention in southern Africa by training non-researchers to engage with research, whilst providing an opportunity for researchers to engage with policy-makers and practitioners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Health care decision-making requires research evidence and good judgement. This applies to policy making, as much as it does to deci sions about an individual's care. We have attempted to employ the principles of patient involvement and evidence-based medicine to the development of policies for communication about newborn blood spot screening.Methods We identified points of communication along the newborn screening pathway and gathered evidence about these communication events. We asked three questions: what research evidence is available about screening and communication; what are parents' experiences of and preferences for communication about screening; and, to what extent does current parent information match the evidence, and meet parents needs? Drawing together these different forms of evidence, we employed consensus development methods, convening a multi-disciplined working group to guide our decisions in drafting communication resources and procedures. Finally we carried out a consultation to garner feedback on these draft communication policies.Results Feedback from our consultation was largely positive. We made changes to the format of the parent leaflet, and simplified the content. Where we faced contradictory advice, we followed NICE guidelines, prioritising the views of the majority of parents.Discussion We have employed a process of developing evidence-informed communication policy that incorporates a wide range of evidence, and incorporates the judgement of patients and health professionals, through the use of consensus development methods. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The evidence-informed approach to policy-making and implementation is, at its core, about better decisions for a better future. It is focused on the effective use of scarce resources, on avoiding harm and maximising good. It is grounded in principles of equity and equality, of accountability and transparency. Given these characteristics, for those of us who work in this field, there is arguably a moral, economic, social and political case for paying closer attention to evidence-informed decision-making ecosystems in the South. Evidence-based policy and implementation, or evidence-informed decision-making in line with the most recent thinking, is often framed from two inter-related but limited perspectives: first, it is viewed as an approach that has originated from 'developed' Northern countries, and second, it is conceptualised as a technical intervention. However, there has been a shift in how the approach is conceived, moving away from assumptions that it is an intervention implemented from outside, from the North, for the benefit of the South. As part of this shift, certain initiatives in Africa have gained greater momentum. It is in acknowledging that there are different ways to think (epistemic diversity) about Southern evidence-informed decision-making, that this work has arisen. It seizes on the opportunity to view evidence-informed decision-making in a new light, exploring the evidence ecosystems in the South as systems strongly influenced by, but not defined by, Northern stimuli, including, but not limited to, technical interventions. This work set out to describe the evidence ecosystem in South Africa. In doing so, it finds that the ecosystem is increasingly resilient despite some limitations. It has strong structural foundations, includes many diverse organisations, is supported by not inconsiderable investment, is enabled by growing and significant capacity, contains iterations and innovations, and last but not least, incorporates complexity that gives the ecosystem resilience. The work demonstrates, through its focus on South Africa's evidence ecosystem, that the global movement has much to learn from the South. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]