Search results

A theory-based systems approach, such as AcciMap accident analysis, has been widely used over the years in multiple safety critical sectors such as the nuclear, petrochemical, aviation and railway industries to provide a detailed understanding of complex systems and the chain of events contributing to accidents resulting from system failure. However, despite its advantages, the use of a systems approach in the food safety context has to date been limited. The purpose of this study was to investigate three established norovirus incidents using the AcciMap accident analysis approach to determine its efficacy at informing the design of food safety policies following a norovirus outbreak to prevent reoccurrence. This approach was found to be of value in analysing norovirus outbreaks. The findings of the AcciMap analysis reveal the norovirus outbreaks were not the outcome of a single causal incident, but a chain of events and interactions that involved governmental failure to control and enforce safety regulations and the impact on managerial and individual behaviours at a lower level in the system. The analysis identified the common contributory factors such as poor inspections, lack of regular monitoring of quality of water supply, inadequate management of wastewater and ineffective communication that led to each incident across the hierarchical levels within a socio-technical system. The value of using the AcciMap approach is that it does not constrain the analysis to individual components or particular types of incident allowing for a more holistic and interconnected risk assessment.

This study explored factors affecting information selection by international stakeholders working with invasive species. Despite differences in information requirements between groups, all stakeholders demonstrated a clear preference for free, easily accessible online information, and predominantly used internet search engines and specialist websites to find information. A reliance on experience, rather than scientific evidence, was identified, suggesting that underlying knowledge transfer issues relate to accessing and translating research evidence. This is consistent with other sectors. Research information potentially meets the needs of invasive species stakeholders, but following simple dissemination actions outlined here could help to ensure that relevant research evidence is selected to inform decision making.

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.

Background: There are several standards which make explicit a consensus view on sound practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences. Until now, no equivalent standard has been published for SRs which focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. Objectives: To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus view on a key set of recommended practices which can function as a standard for the planning and conduct of SRs in the environmental health sciences. Methods: A draft set of practices was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and discussed at an international workshop of 33 participants from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The guidance was revised over six follow-up webinars, multiple rounds of email feedback, and bilateral phone calls, until there was group consensus that a comprehensive framework for the planning and conduct of high-quality environmental health SRs had been articulated. Results: The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) standard is a code of practice consisting of 70 performance elements across eight performance domains, representing the consensus view of a diverse group of experts as to what constitutes "sound and good" practice in the conduct of environmental health SRs. Discussion: COSTER provides a set of practices which, if followed, should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence. COSTER clarifies sound and good practice in a number of controversial aspects of SR conduct, including the management of conflicts of interest, inclusion of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. Not all of the practices are yet commonplace but environmental health SRs would benefit from their use.

Background: There are several standards that offer explicit guidance on good practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences; however, no similarly comprehensive set of recommendations has been published for SRs that focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. Objectives: To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus view on a key set of recommended practices for the planning and conduct of SRs in the environmental health sciences. Methods: A draft set of recommendations was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and developed in a consensus process, which engaged international participation from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The consensus process consisted of a workshop, follow-up webinars, email discussion and bilateral phone calls. Results: The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) recommendations cover 70 SR practices across eight performance domains. Detailed explanations for specific recommendations are made for those identified by the authors as either being novel to SR in general, specific to the environmental health SR context, or potentially controversial to environmental health SR stakeholders. Discussion: COSTER provides a set of recommendations that should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence, and advance discussion of a number of controversial aspects of conduct of EH SRs. Key recommendations include the management of conflicts of interest, handling of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. A process for advancing from COSTER's recommendations to developing a formal standard for EH SRs is also indicated.

Background: There are several standards which make explicit a consensus view on sound practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences. Until now, no equivalent standard has been published for SRs which focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. Objectives: To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus on a core set of requirements for sound practice in planning and conducting a SR in the environmental health sciences. Methods: A draft set of requirements was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and discussed at an international workshop of 33 participants from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The guidance was revised over six follow-up webinars and several rounds of email feedback, until there was group consensus that a comprehensive framework for the planning and conduct of high-quality environmental health SRs had been articulated. Results: The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) standard is a code of practice consisting of 70 requirements across eight performance domains, representing the consensus view of a diverse group of experts as to what constitutes "sound and good" practice in the conduct of environmental health SRs. Discussion: COSTER provides a set of sound-practice requirements which, if followed, should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence. COSTER clarifies sound and good practice in a number of controversial aspects of SR conduct, providing requirements relating to management of conflicts of interest, inclusion of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. Not all of the practices are yet commonplace, but environmental health SRs would benefit from their introduction. Some aspects of SR, such as assessment of external validity at the level of individual study, are not yet sufficiently developed for consensus on sound practice to be achieved.

Background: There are several standards which make explicit a consensus view on sound practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences. Until now, no equivalent standard has been published for SRs which focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. Objectives: To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus on a core set of requirements for sound practice in planning and conducting a SR in the environmental health sciences. Methods: A draft set of requirements was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and discussed at an international workshop of 33 participants from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The guidance was revised over six follow-up webinars and several rounds of email feedback, until there was group consensus that a comprehensive framework for the planning and conduct of high-quality environmental health SRs had been articulated. Results: The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) standard is a code of practice consisting of 70 requirements across eight performance domains, representing the consensus view of a diverse group of experts as to what constitutes "sound and good" practice in the conduct of environmental health SRs. Discussion: COSTER provides a set of sound-practice requirements which, if followed, should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence. COSTER clarifies sound and good practice in a number of controversial aspects of SR conduct, providing requirements relating to management of conflicts of interest, inclusion of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. Not all of the practices are yet commonplace, but environmental health SRs would benefit from their introduction. Some aspects of SR, such as assessment of external validity at the level of individual study, are not yet sufficiently developed for consensus on sound practice to be achieved.

Background There are several standards that offer explicit guidance on good practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences; however, no similarly comprehensive set of recommendations has been published for SRs that focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. Objectives To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus view on a key set of recommended practices for the planning and conduct of SRs in the environmental health sciences. Methods A draft set of recommendations was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and developed in a consensus process, which engaged international participation from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The consensus process consisted of a workshop, follow-up webinars, email discussion and bilateral phone calls. Results The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) recommendations cover 70 SR practices across eight performance domains. Detailed explanations for specific recommendations are made for those identified by the authors as either being novel to SR in general, specific to the environmental health SR context, or potentially controversial to environmental health SR stakeholders. Discussion COSTER provides a set of recommendations that should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence, and advance discussion of a number of controversial aspects of conduct of EH SRs. Key recommendations include the management of conflicts of interest, handling of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. A process for advancing from COSTER's recommendations to developing a formal standard for EH SRs is also indicated.

An alliance of researchers lays out a framework for taking decisions based on thinking critically about claims and comparisons. Everyone makes claims about what works. Politicians claim that stop and search will reduce violent crime; friends claim that vaccines cause autism; advertisers claim that natural food is healthy. One group of scientists claims that "deworming" programmes (giving deworming pills to all school children in affected areas) improve school performance and health, calling deworming one of the most potent anti-poverty interventions of our time. Another that deworming does not improve either school performance or health. Unfortunately, people often fail to think critically about the trustworthiness of claims, including policy makers weighing claims made by scientists. Schools do not do enough to prepare young people to think critically 1. So many people struggle to assess the trustworthiness of evidence. As a consequence, they may not make informed choices. To address this deficit, we present here a general tool: Key Concepts for Making Informed Choices (Table 1, with examples in Box 2). We hope scientists and professionals in all fields will use, evolve and evaluate it. The tool was adapted, drawing on the expertise of two dozen researchers, from a framework developed for healthcare 2 (Box 1). Ideally, the Key Concepts for Making Informed Choices should be embedded in education for citizens of all ages. This should be done using learning resources and teaching strategies that have been evaluated and shown to be effective. Trustworthy evidence People are flooded with information. Simply giving them more is unlikely to be helpful unless its value is understood. A recent survey in the UK showed that only about a third of the public trust evidence from medical research; about two-thirds trust the experiences of friends and family 3. Not all evidence is created equal. Yet people often don't appreciate which claims are more trustworthy than others; what sort of comparisons are needed to evaluate ...