How explicable are differences between reviews that appear to address a similar research question? A review of reviews of physical activity interventions

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

Targeted youth support: Rapid Evidence Assessment of effective early interventions for youth at risk of future poor outcomes

This report describes the findings and methods of a systematic rapid evidence assessment (REA) of research relevant to interventions of interest to Targeted Youth Support. It was commissioned by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) to inform the development of policy and practice in relation to this initiative

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

Youth work: a systematic map of the research literature.

This is the first systematic international map of youth work research. It provides a unique resource for investigating the content of youth work, how it is delivered and the terms in which it is assessed, both in formal evaluations of its impact and by children and young people themselves. It provides a valuable basis for developing an evidence-informed approach to policy and practice

Systematic reviews to inform policy: institutional mechanisms and social interactions to support their production

Background: The last 35 years have seen a proliferation of systematic reviews seeking to synthesise the best available and most relevant evidence to inform policy. In response to a growing interest in the process of generating policy relevant evidence, I conducted further which investigated the perspective of policy makers and academics about producing systematic reviews to inform health systems policymaking. We found that models for producing reviews can be distinguished in terms of their starting point and their purpose. For example, reviews could start with or without a wide agreement about their key concepts and with the purpose of addressing common problems for multiple audience or to inform policy decisions within a specific jurisdiction and timescale (Oliver and Dickson, 2016). As the models were developed in a health systems policy context, the next step was to test their applicability with reviews commissioned in other fields. Aims: This thesis aims to demonstrate, with an analysis of my publications, how my approach to conducting systematic reviews contributes to an understanding of the institutional mechanisms and social interactions required to produce policy-relevant evidence across broader policy areas. Methods: Case example of four reviews were used to explore the utility of models for producing policy relevant reviews. This was achieving by taking an analytical framework of institutional mechanisms previously developed and operationalising the higher order themes into questions to interrogate our approach to producing systematic reviews. This ‘analytical interrogation’ was an iterative and interpretive process which required drawing on our ‘use of self’ to reflexively generate new insights and understanding of producing each review (Finlay and Gough 2008). The focus of our analysis was to explore institutional mechanisms informing review production. These were framed according to themes representing the overlapping social worlds of policy and research: harnessing motivations, engagement between policy and research, and the structures and procedures for producing policy-relevant reviews and their resulting impact. Findings: My analysis in this thesis has contributed to an understanding of producing policy-relevant systematic reviews in several ways. By exploring the literature on this topic I have discovered that while there is research on the barriers to policy research use and mechanisms to increase uptake, an understanding of the process of producing reviews to address the range of policy needs is disparate, cutting across different fields of inquiry (e.g. methods, technology, stakeholder engagement) and is yet to be systematically drawn together. I have attempted to elucidate that producing policy-relevant reviews is both a technical and social enterprise requiring a range of institutional mechanisms and social competencies to navigate the policy-research interface. I have also shown that the production of reviews in broad policy areas has implications for the quality of reviews, which requires addressing the relationship between accountability and ensuring the coherence of the review, alongside the use of rigorous and explicit methods

Indigenising systematic reviews with a collaborative model of ‘training the trainers’

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

Sustainable Auto Worker Uniforms: Lessons Learned from Applying a Sustainable ProductDevelopment Tool

Sustainability in the apparel industry will be achieved by improving environmental and socially responsible practices and performance (Dickson, Loker, & Eckman, 2009). In 2011, a group of leading apparel companies (brands and retailers), suppliers, and non-profit organizations founded the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC, www.apparelcoalition.org), intending to reduce the environmental and social impacts of the apparel and footwear industry and make the industry sustainable