Search

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact in the global research production and has also increased research waste. Living evidence syntheses (LESs) seek to regularly update a body of evidence addressing a specific question. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the production and dissemination of LESs emerged as a cornerstone of the evidence infrastructure. This critical interpretive synthesis answers the questions: What constitutes an LES to support decision-making?; when should one be produced, updated, and discontinued?; and how should one be disseminated? Methods Searches included the Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Ovid), Health Systems Evidence, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, and Web of Science up to 23 April 2024 and included articles that provide any insights on addressing the compass questions on LESs. Articles were selected and appraised, and their insights extracted. An interpretive and iterative coding process was used to identify relevant thematic categories and create a conceptual framework. Results Among the 16,630 non-duplicate records identified, 208 publications proved eligible. Most were non-empirical articles, followed by actual LESs. Approximately one in three articles were published in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The conceptual framework addresses six thematic categories: (1) what is an LES; (2) what methodological approaches facilitate LESs production; (3) when to produce an LES; (4) when to update an LES; (5) how to make available the findings of an LES; and (6) when to discontinue LES updates. Conclusion LESs can play a critical role in reducing research waste and ensuring alignment with advisory and decision-making processes. This critical interpretive synthesis provides relevant insights on how to better organize the global evidence architecture to support their production. Trial registration PROSPERO registration: CRD42021241875.

Abstract Background Globally, a growing number of calls to formalize and strengthen evidence-support systems have been released, all of which emphasize the importance of evidence-informed decision making. To achieve this, it is critical that evidence producers and decision-makers interact, and that decision-makers’ evidence needs can be efficiently translated into questions to which evidence producers can respond. This paper aims to create a taxonomy of demand-driven questions for use by evidence producers, intermediaries (i.e., people working in between researchers and decision-makers) and decision-makers. Methods We conducted a global cross-sectional survey of units providing some type of evidence support at the explicit request of decision-makers. Unit representatives were invited to answer an online questionnaire where they were asked to provide a list of the questions that they have addressed through their evidence-support mechanism. Descriptive analyses were used to analyze the survey responses, while the questions collected from each unit were iteratively analyzed to create a mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of types of questions that can be answered with some form of evidence. Results Twenty-nine individuals completed the questionnaire, and more than 250 submitted questions were analysed to create a taxonomy of 41 different types of demand-driven questions. These 41 questions were organized by the goal to be achieved, and the goals were grouped in the four decision-making stages (i) clarifying a societal problem, its causes and potential impacts; (ii) finding and selecting options to address a problem; (iii) implementing or scaling-up an option; and (iv) monitoring implementation and evaluating impacts. Conclusion The mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive list of demand-driven questions will help decision-makers (to ask and prioritize questions), evidence producers (to organize and present their work), and evidence-intermediaries (to connect evidence needs with evidence supply).

Abstract Background Evidence networks facilitate the exchange of information and foster international relationships among researchers and stakeholders. These networks are instrumental in enabling the integration of scientific evidence into decision-making processes. While there is a global emphasis on evidence-based decision-making at policy and organisational levels, there exists a significant gap in our understanding of the most effective activities to exchange scientific knowledge and use it in practice. The objective of this rapid review was to explore the strategies employed by evidence networks to facilitate the translation of evidence into decision-making processes. This review makes a contribution to global health policymaking by mapping the landscape of knowledge translation in this context and identifying the evidence translation activities that evidence networks have found effective. Methods The review was guided by standardised techniques for conducting rapid evidence reviews. Document searching was based on a phased approach, commencing with a comprehensive initial search strategy and progressively refining it with each subsequent search iterations. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement was followed. Results The review identified 143 articles, after screening 1135 articles. Out of these, 35 articles were included in the review. The studies encompassed a diverse range of countries, with the majority originating from the United States (n = 14), followed by Canada (n = 5), Sweden (n = 2), and various other single locations (n = 14). These studies presented a varied set of implementation strategies such as research-related activities, the creation of teams/task forces/partnerships, meetings/consultations, mobilising/working with communities, influencing policy, activity evaluation, training, trust-building, and regular meetings, as well as community-academic-policymaker engagement. Conclusions Evidence networks play a crucial role in developing, sharing, and implementing high-quality research for policy. These networks face challenges like coordinating diverse stakeholders, international collaboration, language barriers, research consistency, knowledge dissemination, capacity building, evaluation, and funding. To enhance their impact, sharing network efforts with wider audiences, including local, national, and international agencies, is essential for evidence-based decision-making to shape evidence-informed policies and programmes effectively.

Research evidence can play an important role in each stage of decision-making, evidence-support systems play a key role in aligning the demand for and supply of evidence. This paper provides guidance on what type of study designs most suitably address questions asked by decision-makers. This study used a two-round online Delphi approach, including methodological experts in different areas, disciplines, and geographic locations. Participants prioritized study designs for each of 40 different types of question, with a Kendall's W greater than 0.6 and reaching statistical significance (p

Abstract Background Evidence briefs for policy (EBP) draw on best-available data and research evidence (e.g., systematic reviews) to help clarify policy problems, frame options for addressing them, and identify implementation considerations for policymakers in a given context. An increasing number of governments, non-governmental organizations and research groups have been developing EBP on a wide variety of topics. However, the reporting characteristics of EBP vary across organizations due to a lack of internationally accepted standard reporting guidelines. This project aims to develop a STandard reporting guideline of Evidence briefs for Policy (STEP), which will encompass a reporting checklist and a STEP statement and a user manual. Methods We will refer to and adapt the methods recommended by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network. The key actions include: (1) developing a protocol; (2) establishing an international multidisciplinary STEP working group (consisting of a Coordination Team and a Delphi Panel); (3) generating an initial draft of the potential items for the STEP reporting checklist through a comprehensive review of EBP-related literature and documents; (4) conducting a modified Delphi process to select and refine the reporting checklist; (5) using the STEP to evaluate published policy briefs in different countries; (6) finalizing the checklist; (7) developing the STEP statement and the user manual (8) translating the STEP into different languages; and (9) testing the reliability through real world use. Discussion Our protocol describes the development process for STEP. It will directly address what and how information should be reported in EBP and contribute to improving their quality. The decision-makers, researchers, journal editors, evaluators, and other stakeholders who support evidence-informed policymaking through the use of mechanisms like EBP will benefit from the STEP. Registration We registered the protocol on the EQUATOR network. ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#84 )

Introduction What are the different ways in which health equity can be sought through policy and programs? Although there is a central focus on health equity in global and public health, we recognize that stakeholders can understand health equity as taking different approaches and that there is not a single conceptual approach. However, information on conceptual categories of actions to improve health equity and/or reduce health inequity is scarce. Therefore, this study asks the research question: “what conceptual approaches exist in striving for health equity and/or reducing health inequity?” with the aim of presenting a comprehensive overview of approaches. Methods A scoping review will be undertaken following the PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and in consultation with a research librarian. Both the peer-reviewed and grey literatures will be searched using: Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, PAIS Index (ProQuest), JSTOR, Canadian Public Documents Collection, the World Health Organization IRIS (Institutional Repository for Information Sharing), and supplemented by a Google Advanced Search. Screening will be conducted by two independent reviewers and data will be charted, coded, and narratively synthesized. Discussion We anticipate developing a foundational document compiling categories of approaches and discussing the nuances inherent in each conceptualization to promote clarified and united action.

Abstract Background Knowledge translation (KT) platforms are organisations, initiatives and networks that focus on supporting evidence-informed policy-making at least in part about the health-system arrangements that determine whether the right programmes, services and products get to those who need them. Many descriptions and evaluations of KT platforms in low- and middle-income countries have been produced but, to date, they have not been systematically reviewed. Methods We identified potentially relevant studies through a search of five electronic databases and a variety of approaches to identify grey literature. We used four criteria to select eligible empirical studies. We extracted data about seven characteristics of included studies and about key findings. We used explicit criteria to assess study quality. In synthesising the findings, we gave greater attention to themes that emerged from multiple studies, higher-quality studies and different contexts. Results Country was the most common jurisdictional focus of KT platforms, EVIPNet the most common name and high turnover among staff a common infrastructural feature. Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues were the activities/outputs that were the most extensively studied and viewed as helpful, while rapid evidence services were the next most studied but only in a single jurisdiction. None of the summative evaluations used a pre–post design or a control group and, with the exception of the evaluations of the influence of briefs and dialogues on intentions to act, none of the evaluations achieved a high quality score. Conclusions A large and growing volume of research evidence suggests that KT platforms offer promise in supporting evidence-informed policy-making in low- and middle-income countries. KT platforms should consider as next steps expanding their current, relatively limited portfolio of activities and outputs, building bridges to complementary groups, and planning for evaluations that examine ‘what works’ for ‘what types of issues’ in ‘what types of contexts’.

IntroductionThe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID19) pandemic has struck Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) particularly hard. One of the crucial areas in the international community's response relates to accelerating research and knowledge sharing. The aim of this article is to map and characterise the existing empirical research related to COVID-19 in LAC countries and contribute to identify opportunities for strengthening future research.MethodsIn this scoping review, articles published between December 2019 and 11 November 2020 were selected if they included an empirical component (explicit scientific methods to collect and analyse primary data), LAC population was researched, and the research was about the COVID-19 pandemic, regardless of publication status or language. MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, Scielo, CENTRAL and Epistemonikos were searched. All titles and abstracts, and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers. Data from included studies was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second independent reviewer.Results14,406 records were found. After removing duplicates, 5,458 titles and abstracts were screened, of which 2,323 full texts were revised to finally include 1,626 empirical studies. The largest portion of research came from people/population of Brazil (54.6%), Mexico (19.1%), Colombia (11.2%), Argentina (10.4%), Peru (10.3%) and Chile (10%), while Caribbean countries concentrated 15.3%. The methodologies most used were cross-sectional studies (34.7%), simulation models (17.5%) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (13.6%). Using a modified version of WHO's COVID-19 Coordinated Global Research Roadmap classification, 54.2% were epidemiological studies, followed by clinical management (22.3%) and candidate therapeutics (12.2%). Government and public funds support were reported in 19.2% of studies, followed by universities or research centres (9%), but 47.5% did not include any funding statement.ConclusionDuring the first part of the COVID-19 pandemic, LAC countries have contributed to the global research effort primarily with epidemiological studies, with little participation on vaccines research, meaning that this type of knowledge would be imported from elsewhere. Research agendas could be further coordinated aiming to enhance shared self-sufficiency regarding knowledge needs in the region.

BackgroundAffordability is a key barrier to access to medicines. Generic medicines policies can address this barrier and promote access. Successful uptake of generic medicines depends, in part, on ensuring that these products are interchangeable with reference products. Typically, bioequivalence certification is established in order to demonstrate such interchangeability.ObjectiveTo study the implementation of the bioequivalence certification policy in Chile.MethodsWe used Chilean Market Regulatory Authority data for analysis to study the number of products that obtained bioequivalence certification, the time until bioequivalence certification and associated factors to obtain bioequivalence.ResultsAs of January 2017, out of 2,336 products with a valid market authorization containing at least one of the 167 APIs that required BE certification, 1,026 products actually have BE certification (1,026/2,336, 43.9% compliance). Where data were available, the time between submission of the market authorization as a bioequivalent product to final authorization by the national medicine regulatory authority for most products varied between 4-6 months. The fraction of all BE products containing a given API out of the total marketed products containing that API varies considerably, e.g. for the API olmesartan there was only a single BE product marketed, the API diclofenac had none.ConclusionsAlthough the implementation of Chile's bioequivalence policy increased the number of bioequivalent products, over 50% of generic products requiring bioequivalence that did not obtain this certification. Also for some of the API none or very few BE products are marketed which limits the success of a substitution policy. Further studies are required to identify the apparent lack of incentives to obtain bioequivalence certification. Studies of sales volumes and prices of the products are needed to identify whether generic products without bioequivalence certification either become bioequivalent or eventually exit the market.

Rapid review methodology aims to facilitate faster conduct of systematic reviews to meet the needs of the decision-maker, while also maintaining quality and credibility. This systematic review aimed to determine the impact of different methodological shortcuts for undertaking rapid reviews on the risk of bias (RoB) of the results of the review. Review stages for which reviews and primary studies were sought included the preparation of a protocol, question formulation, inclusion criteria, searching, selection, data extraction, RoB assessment, synthesis, and reporting. We searched 11 electronic databases in April 2022, and conducted some supplementary searching. Reviewers worked in pairs to screen, select, extract data, and assess the RoB of included reviews and studies. We included 15 systematic reviews, 7 scoping reviews, and 65 primary studies. We found that several commonly used shortcuts in rapid reviews are likely to increase the RoB in the results. These include restrictions based on publication date, use of a single electronic database as a source of studies, and use of a single reviewer for screening titles and abstracts, selecting studies based on the full-text, and for extracting data. Authors of rapid reviews should be transparent in reporting their use of these shortcuts and acknowledge the possibility of them causing bias in the results. This review also highlights shortcuts that can save time without increasing the risk of bias. Further research is needed for both systematic and rapid reviews on faster methods for accurate data extraction and RoB assessment, and on development of more precise search strategies.