Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: In low and middle income (LMIC) countries like India, evidence based approach in decision making is not common practice. One way of increasing the use of the Cochrane library is by actively seeking stake-holders and providing them with information from the library that is particularly catered towards their needs. Taking it one step further, evidence is better valued and utilized when stake-holders are actively engaged in identifying the gaps and bridging them with concrete evidence. This will result in better utilization of evidence in decision making.
Objectives: To formulate a strategy to seek and engage stake holders in identifying evidence gaps and bridging them. Further, to provide assistance in formulating policies using the evidence.
Methods: 1. Identify a particular stake holder that require evidence to guide them in their decision making process. 2. Follow the Cochrane methodology to gather evidence on the particular topic. 3. Identify the best method of disseminating the gathered evidence and translate it into policy.
Results: We are currently in the process of working along with the South Asian Toxicology Network (SATN). After identifying the gaps in evidence on snake bites, plant poisoning, pesticide poisoning and regulation, we have followed the Cochrane methodology and generated evidence to bridge these gaps. Upon the request of our stake-holders we have then decided to disseminate the generated evidence in three levels with varying depth of information. Next, we will be presenting a summary of the generated evidence at the annual SATN conference in the hopes of rallying support in translating this evidence into policy.
Conclusions: This is a potential strategy that can be replicated with other stake holders, particularly in LMIC, and indirectly resulting in an increased awareness and usage of The Cochrane Library.
Objectives: To formulate a strategy to seek and engage stake holders in identifying evidence gaps and bridging them. Further, to provide assistance in formulating policies using the evidence.
Methods: 1. Identify a particular stake holder that require evidence to guide them in their decision making process. 2. Follow the Cochrane methodology to gather evidence on the particular topic. 3. Identify the best method of disseminating the gathered evidence and translate it into policy.
Results: We are currently in the process of working along with the South Asian Toxicology Network (SATN). After identifying the gaps in evidence on snake bites, plant poisoning, pesticide poisoning and regulation, we have followed the Cochrane methodology and generated evidence to bridge these gaps. Upon the request of our stake-holders we have then decided to disseminate the generated evidence in three levels with varying depth of information. Next, we will be presenting a summary of the generated evidence at the annual SATN conference in the hopes of rallying support in translating this evidence into policy.
Conclusions: This is a potential strategy that can be replicated with other stake holders, particularly in LMIC, and indirectly resulting in an increased awareness and usage of The Cochrane Library.