Academic contributions to the development of evidence and policy systems: an EPPI Centre collective autoethnography

Background: Evidence for policy systems emerging around the world combine the fields of research synthesis, evidence-informed policy and public engagement with research. We conducted this retrospective collective autoethnography to understand the role of academics in developing such systems. // Methods: We constructed a timeline of EPPI Centre work and associated events since 1990. We employed: Transition Theory to reveal emerging and influential innovations; and Transformative Social Innovation theory to track their increasing depth, reach and embeddedness in research and policy organisations. // Findings: The EPPI Centre, alongside other small research units, collaborated with national and international organisations at the research-policy interface to incubate, spread and embed new ways of working with evidence and policy. Sustainable change arising from research-policy interactions was less about uptake and embedding of innovations, but more about co-developing and tailoring innovations with organisations to suit their missions and structures for creating new knowledge or using knowledge for decisions. Both spreading and embedding innovation relied on mutual learning that both accommodated and challenged established assumptions and values of collaborating organisations as they adapted to closer ways of working. The incubation, spread and embedding of innovations have been iterative, with new ways of working inspiring further innovation as they spread and embedded. Institutionalising evidence for policy required change in both institutions generating evidence and institutions developing policy. // Conclusions: Key mechanisms for academic contributions to advancing evidence for policy were: contract research focusing attention at the research-policy interface; a willingness to work in unfamiliar fields; inclusive ways of working to move from conflict to consensus; and incentives and opportunities for reflection and consolidating learning

Volunteering during the pandemic: Which mechanisms enabled groups, communities and agencies to mobilise and why? A rapid realist review of the evidence

What did we want to know? What were the core mechanisms for mobilising volunteers for local groups, communities, and organisations during the COVID-19 pandemic and under what circumstances, where, and among whom do these mechanisms occur? What did we find? This rapid review identified mechanisms that underpinned the mobilisation of volunteers for local groups, communities, and organisations during the COVID-19 pandemic. From a total of 59 studies, six mechanisms and fourteen context-mechanism-outcome configurations were identified in the review. Gaining experience and developing role identity was a core mechanism that was key in mobilising volunteers to undertake activities during the pandemic; gaining experience and developing role identity also resulted in positive outcomes for volunteers themselves in terms of greater confidence, professional and skill development, personal development, and better mental wellbeing outcomes. Adaptability was a second core mechanism for mobilising large numbers of volunteers during the pandemic. This broadly ensured that individuals, groups and local agencies and organisations were able to respond to the changing needs of beneficiary groups (e.g. where social isolation or inability to access essential supplies became problematic) and were able to adapt to new ways of working (particularly to adapt to the circumstances of lockdown). Emotional support, support in the form of social and material recognition, and support through training were important in sustaining a volunteer workforce, protecting the wellbeing of the volunteer workforce, and may be important in broadening the profile of volunteers. In addition, community level support during the pandemic, organised through mutual aid groups, can be viewed as a form of activism where communities step in as a response to the limitations of the state to provide support for basic essential for community members in need. Altruism was a mechanism observed at an individual level, but also one that emerged at a population level as a key motivator for stepping up during the pandemic and becoming a volunteer. Greater trust was linked with the efficient organisation of volunteers during the pandemic and the extent to which groups and communities were able to scale up efforts to respond to the higher demands that were exhibited during the COVID-19 pandemic. Co-ordination helped communities, agencies and mutual aid groups to work together rather than in competition, and to work more efficiently around one another rather than in duplication

Mobilising volunteer groups, communities and agencies during the pandemic: a rapid realist view of the evidence

The COVID-19 pandemic represented a rise in ‘people power’ globally, expressed through manifold acts of kindness, solidarity and mutualism as communities organised and came together where governments could or would not. In this study we were interested in the mechanisms through which communities and agencies extended existing practices and structures to respond to the pandemic or adopted new ways of organising. We undertook a rapid realist systematic review, following established steps and drawing on the Volunteer Process Model as our core theory. We worked with 59 studies to identify the mechanisms through which individuals, agencies and organisations, and communities mobilised and we identified six mechanisms. Gaining experience and developing role identity were key in mobilising volunteers to undertake activities and also resulted in positive outcomes for the volunteers themselves. Adaptability ensured that individuals, groups and local agencies and organisations were able to respond to the changing needs of beneficiary groups. Co-ordination helped communities, agencies and mutual aid groups to work together rather than in competition. Emotional support, support in the form of social and material recognition, and support through training were important in sustaining a volunteer workforce and protecting the wellbeing of the volunteer workforce. Altruism was a key motivator for stepping up during the pandemic and becoming a volunteer while greater trust was linked with the extent to which groups and communities were able to scale up efforts to respond to higher demands during the pandemic. While the COVID-19 pandemic represented a period of great social upheaval, it illuminated the ‘power of people’ working together. Our findings identify six key mechanisms that supported this mobilisation, which may be critical to activate in future health emergencies, but are also largely reflective of investments made before the pandemic to support the development of social capital and the development of volunteering infrastructure

Mental health and psychosocial support programmes for adults in humanitarian emergencies: a systematic review and meta-analysis in low and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Humanitarian emergencies are a major global health challenge with the potential to have a profound impact on people's mental and psychological health. Effective interventions in humanitarian settings are needed to support the mental health and psychosocial needs of affected populations. To fill this gap, this systematic review synthesises evidence on the effectiveness of a wide range of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) programmes delivered to adults affected by humanitarian emergencies in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: A comprehensive search of 12 electronic databases, key websites and citation checking was undertaken in 2015 and updated in May 2018. We included controlled trials published in English from 1980. We extracted data and assessed risk of bias prior to performing a meta-analysis using random effects models. When meta-analysis was not used, we narratively described individual trial effect sizes using forest plots. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included. Overall, MHPSS programmes show benefits in improved functioning and reducing post-traumatic stress disorder. There are also indications from a limited pool of evidence that cognitive-behavioural therapy and narrative exposure therapy may improve mental health conditions. Other psychotherapy modalities also showed a positive trend in favour of MHPSS programmes for improving several mental health outcomes. CONCLUSION: In addition to MHPSS programme for improving mental health outcomes in adults affected by humanitarian emergencies in LMICs, there is also a need to generate robust evidence to identify potential impact on broader social dimensions. Doing so could aid the future development of MHPSS programmes and ensure their effective implementation across different humanitarian contexts in LMICs. Future research on MHPSS programmes which focus on basic services and security, community and family programmes, their cost-effectiveness and mechanisms of impact could also strengthen the MHPSS evidence base to better inform policy and practice decision-making in humanitarian settings. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016033578

Intervention Component Analysis (ICA): a pragmatic approach for identifying the critical features of complex interventions

Background: In order to enable replication of effective complex interventions, systematic reviews need to provide evidence about their critical features and clear procedural details for their implementation. Currently, few systematic reviews provide sufficient guidance of this sort. / Methods: Through a worked example, this paper reports on a methodological approach, Intervention Component Analysis (ICA), specifically developed to bridge the gap between evidence of effectiveness and practical implementation of interventions. By (a) using an inductive approach to explore the nature of intervention features and (b) making use of trialists’ informally reported experience-based evidence, the approach is designed to overcome the deficiencies of poor reporting which often hinders knowledge translation work whilst also avoiding the need to invest significant amounts of time and resources in following up details with authors. / Results: A key strength of the approach is its ability to reveal hidden or overlooked intervention features and barriers and facilitators only identified in practical application of interventions. It is thus especially useful where hypothesised mechanisms in an existing programme theory have failed. A further benefit of the approach is its ability to identify potentially new configurations of components that have not yet been evaluated. / Conclusions: ICA is a formal and rigorous yet relatively streamlined approach to identify key intervention content and implementation processes. ICA addresses a critical need for knowledge translation around complex interventions to support policy decisions and evidence implementation

Young children's engagement with objects in science museums: a rapid evidence assessment of research

This rapid evidence assessment (REA) of literature was conducted to aggregate knowledge about young children's engagement with objects in science museums. The review focuses on empirical studies published between 2000 and 2020 reporting on children in the age range from birth to eight years. Scrutiny of a final sample of 48 peer-reviewed papers indicated that certain museum object characteristics may arouse children's curiosity more than others. Children's interest in museum objects is enhanced and sustained by dialogical and collaborative activity with peers and adults, by sensory, emotional and cognitive engagement with objects, and by children having choice and freedom to explore museum spaces on their own terms. The review identifies there is limited evidence pertaining to children's visits to STEM museums and a need for theoretically robust empirical research with children, museum educators, teachers and parents from diverse communities

Using systems perspectives in evidence synthesis: A methodological mapping review

BACKGROUND: Reviewing complex interventions is challenging because they include many elements that can interact dynamically in a non-linear manner. A systems perspective offers a way of thinking to help understand complex issues, but its application in evidence synthesis is not established. The aim of this project was to understand how and why systems perspectives have been applied in evidence synthesis. METHODS: A methodological mapping review was conducted to identify papers using a systems perspective in evidence synthesis. A search was conducted in seven bibliographic databases and three search engines. RESULTS: A total of 101 papers (representing 98 reviews) met the eligibility criteria. Two categories of reviews were identified: 1) reviews using a 'systems lens' to frame the topic, generate hypotheses, select studies, and guide the analysis and interpretation of findings (n=76) and 2) reviews using systems methods to develop a systems model (n=22). Several methods (e.g., systems dynamic modeling, soft systems approach) were identified and they were used to identify, rank, and select elements, analyze interactions, develop models, and forecast needs. The main reasons for using a systems perspective were to address complexity, view the problem as a whole, and understand the interrelationships between the elements. Several challenges for capturing the true nature and complexity of a problem were raised when performing these methods. CONCLUSION: This review is a useful starting point when designing evidence synthesis of complex interventions. It identifies different opportunities for applying a systems perspective in evidence synthesis, and highlights both commonplace and less familiar methods