Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Systematic reviews are increasingly recognized as important for policy decisions across sectors. However, global capacity is variable and reviews address fewer policy dilemmas than clinical practice questions.
Methods: Information and reflections on producing systematic reviews in low and middle income countries (LMICs) were sought from review funders, review support organisations and review authors. Current capacity and capacity strengthening were considered for: individual authors, review teams, institutions that fund, support or conduct systematic reviews; networks and systems to support systematic reviewing internationally. Interviews with systematic reviewers and policy makers focused on the relevance of reviews.
Results: The largest network of a skilled workforce and established centres is The Cochrane Collaboration. Smaller networks provide specialist skills in the production of reviews beyond health care and beyond questions about the effects of interventions. Participants can only make good use of training programmes that are closely aligned with reviews in progress. Developing individuals with key skills in organisations where systematic reviews are not seen as valuable is challenging and can have negative consequences if those skills are used to boost careers by moving out of LMICs rather than conducting systematic reviews in and for LMICs. Systematic searching faces challenges in terms of: access to appropriate sources of research, functionality of bibliographic databases, and developing technical skills when frequently interrupted by poor internet connectivity. Capacity development needs a coherent system of supply and demand. Yet producers and users of systematic reviews often struggle to engage with each others’ worlds.
Conclusions: Investment needs to consider institutions’ current capacity and readiness to change. People in LMICs are well placed to consider the feasibility of technical and social solutions for strengthening research capacity, with people in high income countries taking a supportive role. Capacity development for policy-relevant reviews requires culture change on both sides of the research-policy divide.
Systematic reviews are increasingly recognized as important for policy decisions across sectors. However, global capacity is variable and reviews address fewer policy dilemmas than clinical practice questions.
Methods: Information and reflections on producing systematic reviews in low and middle income countries (LMICs) were sought from review funders, review support organisations and review authors. Current capacity and capacity strengthening were considered for: individual authors, review teams, institutions that fund, support or conduct systematic reviews; networks and systems to support systematic reviewing internationally. Interviews with systematic reviewers and policy makers focused on the relevance of reviews.
Results: The largest network of a skilled workforce and established centres is The Cochrane Collaboration. Smaller networks provide specialist skills in the production of reviews beyond health care and beyond questions about the effects of interventions. Participants can only make good use of training programmes that are closely aligned with reviews in progress. Developing individuals with key skills in organisations where systematic reviews are not seen as valuable is challenging and can have negative consequences if those skills are used to boost careers by moving out of LMICs rather than conducting systematic reviews in and for LMICs. Systematic searching faces challenges in terms of: access to appropriate sources of research, functionality of bibliographic databases, and developing technical skills when frequently interrupted by poor internet connectivity. Capacity development needs a coherent system of supply and demand. Yet producers and users of systematic reviews often struggle to engage with each others’ worlds.
Conclusions: Investment needs to consider institutions’ current capacity and readiness to change. People in LMICs are well placed to consider the feasibility of technical and social solutions for strengthening research capacity, with people in high income countries taking a supportive role. Capacity development for policy-relevant reviews requires culture change on both sides of the research-policy divide.