Search

Objective: To identify, appraise, and synthesize studies of interventions to improve labor market outcomes of adults in developing countries with physical and/or sensory disabilities. Method: Systematic review methods, following Campbell Collaboration guidelines, were utilized. A comprehensive search was used to identify relevant studies published between 1990 and 2013, which were graded for study quality and a narrative approach used to synthesize the research evidence. Results: Fourteen studies covering a wide range of interventions met the inclusion criteria. Although individual studies reported improvements in outcomes, heterogeneity was high and studies were generally of poor methodological quality. Conclusions: There is a lack of high-quality research evidence to inform decision-making in this area. Stakeholders should be cautious when interpreting the results of the current evidence base. [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]

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 importance of systematic review evidence in the design and implementation of policies and interventions is increasingly recognised in the field of international development. This article presents a stocktake of the primary years of systematic reviewing in international development, providing a thematic overview of what we have learned about conducting international development reviews. Applying a structured methodology to search for and categorise all relevant literature, it establishes that systematic reviews have been well received in international development and serve as a useful tool for evidence-informed development, which has led to important discoveries in the domain. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

This paper presents a methodology that is increasingly being adopted in international development, namely systematic review. It starts from the premise that rigorous and structured systematic reviews of research evidence have the potential to ‘change the world’ by providing accurate comprehensive summaries of knowledge for decision-makers, and goes on to outline the key processes involved in conducting these reviews. It outlines the methodology in terms of the key research stages of: establishing your review question, collecting data, analysis, reflecting on the strengths of your methods, and drawing conclusions. In doing so, it lays down a challenge to development researchers, to engage with the approach and improve the rigour of our literature reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic review methodology pioneered in health care has been increasingly applied to development questions of importance in lower- and middle-income countries. This paper reports one such review on the topic of microfinance in sub-Saharan Africa and reflects on the number of pragmatic methodological compromises made when applying the method to a new field. These compromises relate to multidisciplinary teamwork, application of regional filters, drawing on evidence from additional study types and exploring mechanisms for change through the development and testing of a causal pathway. The paper concludes that a pragmatic rigorous approach to systematically reviewing evidence of effectiveness is needed for international development. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background If research addresses the questions of relevance to patients and clinicians, decision-makers will be better equipped to design and deliver health services which meet their needs. To this end, a number of initiatives have engaged patients and clinicians in setting research agendas. This paper aimed to scope the research literature addressing such efforts. Methods A systematic search strategy combined electronic searches of bibliographic databases with handsearching and contacting key authors. Two researchers, initially working independently, described the relevant reports. Findings Over 250 studies addressed patients' or clinicians' priorities for research and outcomes for assessment. This literature described different routes for patients and clinicians to contribute to research agendas. Two-thirds of the studies addressing patients' or clinicians' research questions were applicable across health care, with the remainder focussed on specific health conditions. The 27 formal studies of patient involvement revealed a literature that has grown in the last decade. Although only nine studies engaged patients and clinicians in identifying research questions together, they show that methods have advanced over time, with all of them engaging participants directly and repeatedly in facilitated debate and most employing formal decision-making procedures. Conclusion A sizeable literature is available to inform priorities for research and the methods for setting research agendas with patients and clinicians. We recommend that research funders and researchers draw on this literature to provide relevant research for health service decision-makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]