Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Internationally, a variety of deliverables summarize and/or synthesize research without culminating in a full systematic review. Examples include scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence maps. The terms are used interchangeably. The Unit for Social Welfare Research at the Norwegian Knowledge Centre (Norwegian Institute of Public Health) receives commissions for evidence syntheses from a number of welfare directorates. In 2012 to 2015, the most frequent commission was for a 'systematic search and sort' on various topics. At the Knowledge Centre, a 'systematic search and sort' is defined as a systematic literature search with subsequent categorization of research that meets the inclusion criteria. There is no assessment of risk of bias or synthesis of the findings. However, in some cases, the key messages in the abstracts are translated and/or summarized.
Objectives: The aim of this study is to present and discuss the usefulness of the 'systematic search and sort' as a deliverable.
Methods: We examined the issue from three directions:
1. analysis of all 24 published systematic 'search and sorts' with respect to purpose, size and presentation, in order to map out the characteristics of the deliverable;
2. searching of databases and relevant organisational websites for deliverables similar to our 'systematic search and sort', in order to position it among other knowledge synthesis deliverables;
3. a survey among the welfare directorates in order to investigate the use and usefulness of the findings from the 'systematic search and sort' deliverables.
Results: This study is ongoing. Preliminary findings include:
1. analysis of the 24 publications suggests at least three different objectives;
2. our literature search yielded a vast field of summarized research, and this raises the question of whether there deliverable(s) which share the same methodology as the 'systematic search and sort' already exist;
3. successful development, piloting, and distribution of the questionnaire to the commissioners, to which we expect answers within a month.
Objectives: The aim of this study is to present and discuss the usefulness of the 'systematic search and sort' as a deliverable.
Methods: We examined the issue from three directions:
1. analysis of all 24 published systematic 'search and sorts' with respect to purpose, size and presentation, in order to map out the characteristics of the deliverable;
2. searching of databases and relevant organisational websites for deliverables similar to our 'systematic search and sort', in order to position it among other knowledge synthesis deliverables;
3. a survey among the welfare directorates in order to investigate the use and usefulness of the findings from the 'systematic search and sort' deliverables.
Results: This study is ongoing. Preliminary findings include:
1. analysis of the 24 publications suggests at least three different objectives;
2. our literature search yielded a vast field of summarized research, and this raises the question of whether there deliverable(s) which share the same methodology as the 'systematic search and sort' already exist;
3. successful development, piloting, and distribution of the questionnaire to the commissioners, to which we expect answers within a month.