Search

This study employed insider research and reflective practice to investigate exchanges across the research-policy interface to understand the practice of producing policy-relevant systematic reviews. Interviewees came from 11 systematic reviews or review programmes which spanned four models of policy-relevant reviews and between them provided evidence for understanding policy problems, comparing policy options, or implementing policy decisions. No review methodology was found to be uniquely appropriate for policy-relevant systematic reviews. It was the mutual engagement across the research-policy interface that made the reviews policy-relevant. This involved thinking about the issues and seeing them from multiple viewpoints to identify and shape questions; this prompted implicit or explicit value-driven debates. The intellectual work to shape a policy-relevant systematic review is an iterative, collective endeavour that requires partners from either side of the policy-research interface to engage with the unfamiliar, listen, challenge and co-construct questions and answers.

Why you should read this article: • To understand a collaborative learning model for developing 'training the trainer' courses • To develop training programmes on indigenising systematic reviews to local contexts • To gain insights into adult learning and teaching strategies Background: Developing a workforce with the skills to produce and make judicious use of evidence for policy and practice decisions requires trainers who can tailor evidence and training to policy and practice priorities. Aim: To describe how a collaborative learning model adapted a systematic review course to suit Indian nurse educators and research scholars in the conduct and use of systematic reviews. Discussion: A collaborative learning team of academics and research scholars brought together expertise in nursing education in India, and evidence synthesis in India and the UK. Participants found the course was highly beneficial, enhanced independent and critical thinking, and instilled them with the confidence and skills to deliver such courses to Indian researchers, nurses and other healthcare professionals. Conclusion: Contextualising materials and methods to participants' experiences made learning more relatable. The use of adult learning approaches enabled participants to apply the same approaches when leading training in their own institutions and underpinned long-term sustainable working relationships between facilitators and learners, leading to new studies and new resources to support evidence-informed decision-making. Implications for practice: An educational intervention on 'indigenising systematic reviews' with online collaborative learning can produce improvements in the knowledge and skills of participants. Advantages of this educational approach include its flexibility, active involvement of participants and sustainable partnership building. The principles and methods used could be replicated in any setting to train trainers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Support for producing systematic reviews about health systems is less well developed than for those about clinical practice. From interviewing policy makers and systematic reviewers we identified institutional mechanisms which bring systematic reviews and policy priorities closer by harnessing organisational and individual motivations, emphasising engagement between policy and research, embedding efforts in conducive structures and supporting them with formalised procedures. Four models combine mechanisms appropriately to suit the initial degree of clarity and consensus of key issues underpinning the policy problem or research question, and whether the review is for a specific decision or widespread use.

When swift, accurate appraisal of evidence is required to inform policy concerning broad research questions, and budgetary constraints limit the employment of large research teams, researchers face a significant challenge which is sometimes met by reviewing existing systematic reviews. In this paper we highlight the challenges inherent in the reviews of reviews (RoR) method in order to advance understanding of this important tool for policy makers. Drawing on our experiences, we present, where possible, potential solutions to these challenges to demonstrate that RoRs, despite their limitations, can be useful for mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed.

Abstract Background Systematic reviews are promoted as being important to inform decision-making. However, when presented with a set of reviews in a complex area, how easy is it to understand how and why they may differ from one another? Methods An analysis of eight reviews reporting evidence on effectiveness of community interventions to promote physical activity. We assessed review quality and investigated overlap of included studies, citation of relevant reviews, consistency in reporting, and reasons why specific studies may be excluded. Results There were 28 included studies. The majority (n = 22; 79%) were included only in one review. There was little cross-citation between reviews (n = 4/28 possible citations; 14%). Where studies appeared in multiple reviews, results were consistently reported except for complex studies with multiple publications. Review conclusions were similar. For most reviews (n = 6/8; 75%), we could explain why primary data were not included; this was usually due to the scope of the reviews. Most reviews tended to be narrow in focus, making it difficult to gain an understanding of the field as a whole. Conclusions In areas where evaluating impact is known to be difficult, review findings often relate to uncertainty of data and methodologies, rather than providing substantive findings for policy and practice. Systematic ‘maps’ of research can help identify where existing research is robust enough for multiple in-depth syntheses and also show where new reviews are needed. To ensure quality and fidelity, review authors should systematically search for all publications from complex studies. Other relevant reviews should be searched for and cited to facilitate knowledge-building.

Realist synthesis is often offered as a useful strategy to understand intervention complexity. Its unique selling point is its basis in a critical realist philosophy of science. However, we argue that the philosophical basis of current approaches to realist synthesis is closer to positivism, notably the focus on bringing a theoretical reduction to complex problems, a strategy eschewed in critical realism's concern with complex independent ontology. We critique three recently published reviews to illustrate our arguments and apply an analytic strategy to findings from a realist review that, we argue, is more in line with critical realism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]