Search

Living evidence syntheses are systematically appraised and continually updated summaries of research evidence, (1) such as living evidence-based guidelines, (2) living systematic reviews, (3) living evidence maps and living policy [...]

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: Our aim is to collect, assess, and synthesise all the available empirical evidence on what works to support evidence‐informed decision‐making by policymakers. In doing so, we will aim to answer the following research questions: What are the impacts of interventions to support evidence‐informed decision‐making by policymakers? What are the factors which have influenced the impact of these interventions, and their design and implementation in low‐ and middle‐income countries? In answering these questions, our goal is to estimate the overall impact and relative effectiveness of different interventions, identify factors or configurations of factors that support or hinder their effectiveness in low‐ and middle‐income countries and to identify gaps and areas for future primary research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Improving educational attainment, while reducing social inequality, is one of the fundamental pillars of education policy across the world (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009; Voogt, Knezek, Cox, Knezek, & ten Brummelhuis, 2013). Information and communications technology (ICT) is often provided by schools or national education departments with the intention of improving attainment and addressing this inequality (SQW Ipsos Mori & London Knowledge Lab, 2011) and yet -- despite the need to justify and prioritize sparse educational resources -- this spending is often not based upon evidence of effectiveness. This review will focus on the different forms of ICT in education with the aim to identify which forms yield the most educational benefits for students. Policymakers and schools both require evidence to guide them on which ICT to invest in. It is imperative for teachers, education policy makers, and local planners to know whether and how money spent will impact on the learning of pupils who receive it. This is particularly important in the face of multiple marketing efforts from competing manufacturers and developers and increased demand for ICT in schools from parents and students.

This article proposes a new model to support the use of evidence by decision-makers. There has been increased emphasis over the last 15 years on the use of evidence to inform decision-making at policy and practice levels but the conceptual thinking has not kept pace with practical developments in the field. We have developed a new demand-side model, with multiple dimensions to conceptualise support for the use of evidence in decision-making. This model emphasises the need for multiple levels of engagement, a combination of interventions, a spectrum of outcomes and a detailed consideration of context. [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]