Suchergebnisse

There is a tension between conducting comprehensive systematic reviews and completing them in time to meet policy-making deadlines. The 'rapid evidence assessment' has been proposed as a solution to this; offering rigorous reviews in a condensed timescale. While used frequently in healthcare, this mode of reviewing presents considerable challenges in social policy. We describe some potential problems and suggest reviewing strategies that can overcome some of them. There are situations, however, in which it may not be feasible to embark on a rapid review, and caution should be exercised when selecting this method.

English
The 'evidence movement' poses particular challenges to social science. This article describes and reflects on some of these challenges, using as a case study the development over the period from 1993 of the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating (EPPI-Centre) at the Institute of Education, University of London. The article describes the development of EPPICentre resources for supporting evidence-informed policy in the fields of education and health promotion, and in so doing explores many of the challenges that confront research reviewers in the social sciences. These include technical and methodological issues affecting the quality and reporting of primary research, and the retrieval quality of bibliographic databases; and wider factors such as the culture of academia, and research funding practices that militate against the building of a cumulative evidence base.

The 'evidence movement' poses particular challenges to social science. This article describes & reflects on some of these challenges, using as a case study the development over the period from 1993 of the Evidence for Policy & Practice Information & Coordinating (EPPI-Centre) at the Institute of Education, University of London. The article describes the development of EPPICentre resources for supporting evidence-informed policy in the fields of education & health promotion, & in so doing explores many of the challenges that confront research reviewers in the social sciences. These include technical & methodological issues affecting the quality & reporting of primary research, & the retrieval quality of bibliographic databases; & wider factors such as the culture of academia, & research funding practices that militate against the building of a cumulative evidence base. 3 Tables, 122 References. Adapted from the source document.

Evidence-informed policy and practice call on research addressing a broad range of research questions: evaluating the need for, and development, implementation, acceptability and effectiveness of interventions. Synthesizing this evidence requires methods that integrate the findings from diverse study designs. This article reports the development of a new model of research synthesis for this purpose. On completion of a series of substantive reviews, methodological reflections addressed: the interrelationship between review questions, relevant theory and values within the review process; methodological similarities and differences with more conventional reviews of effectiveness; the added value in terms of conclusions and specific recommendations; and the relevance to public policy.

In a short pilot study we systematically involved healthcare consumers in identifying research topics, and prioritizing, commissioning and reporting evaluations of health technologies. We analysed records of consumers' suggestions for their content and, wherever possible, compared them with suggestions from academics and staff of the UK National Health Service. Consumers tended to highlight issues about patients' views, social contexts, information and support needs, long-term outcomes, and dissemination of research findings to consumers. These issues were usually not addressed by professionals who tended to focus more on technical and economic aspects of the work. Consumers made unique contributions and brought fresh ideas and skills, which were readily incorporated, into the programme. Their direct involvement promises to better satisfy the information needs of those who use the NHS, and similar approaches may be applied to evaluating other public services.

International government guidance recommends patient and public involvement (PPI) to improve the relevance and quality of research. PPI is defined as research being carried out 'with' or 'by' patients and members of the public rather than 'to', 'about' or 'for' them (http://www.invo.org.uk/). Patient involvement is different from collecting data from patients as participants. Ethical considerations also differ. PPI is about patients actively contributing through discussion to decisions about research design, acceptability, relevance, conduct and governance from study conception to dissemination. Occasionally patients lead or do research. The research methods of PPI range from informal discussions to partnership research approaches such as action research, co-production and co-learning. This article discusses how researchers can involve patients when they are applying for research funding and considers some opportunities and pitfalls. It reviews research funder requirements, draws on the literature and our collective experiences as clinicians, patients, academics and members of UK funding panels.

International government guidance recommends patient and public involvement (PPI) to improve the relevance and quality of research. PPI is defined as research being carried out 'with' or 'by' patients and members of the public rather than 'to', 'about' or 'for' them (http://www.invo.org.uk/). Patient involvement is different from collecting data from patients as participants. Ethical considerations also differ. PPI is about patients actively contributing through discussion to decisions about research design, acceptability, relevance, conduct and governance from study conception to dissemination. Occasionally patients lead or do research. The research methods of PPI range from informal discussions to partnership research approaches such as action research, co-production and co-learning. This article discusses how researchers can involve patients when they are applying for research funding and considers some opportunities and pitfalls. It reviews research funder requirements, draws on the literature and our collective experiences as clinicians, patients, academics and members of UK funding panels.