Background:

Following a relatively peaceful period from the mid-1990s at a global level, there has been a sharp increase in the number of armed conflicts since 2011. The increase in armed conflicts and atrocities in low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs) has made it imperative to develop effective strategies for conflict and atrocity prevention (CAP). However, to inform policy and practice in this critical area, there is a need to systematically map the evidence base.

Objective:

The Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) aims to provide the international community with the best available evidence for planning CAP strategies. It serves as a global resource, supporting decision-makers in accessing, understanding, and utilizing evidence to inform their efforts in this critical area.

Methods:

The EGM methodology involved systematic searches of academic and gray literature, screening of studies using machine learning functions, and collation of data using an intervention-outcome framework. The framework was developed based on existing related literature and stakeholder consultation.
The CAP EGM comprises ongoing and completed primary studies and evidence syntheses evaluating the effectiveness of CP and AP interventions in L&MICs. It encompasses both large-n designs, which employ quantitative statistical methods, and small-n designs, which utilize qualitative theory–based approaches to establish causal claims. Additionally, the EGM incorporates existing and forthcoming evidence syntheses. The included studies were assessed for confidence level, and a new tool for qualitative theory–based causal studies was developed and piloted. Stakeholder engagement was integral for designing the map (framework development and scope), including extensive involvement of the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office (FCDO) as the consumer, alongside other key stakeholders.

Results:

The author will discuss the key trends and gaps in CAP research, including an increase in evidence linking interventions to violence reduction and social cohesion outcomes from 543 studies. Additionally, effective strategies for preventing CAP found from the evidence base will be presented.

Conclusions:

This paper contributes to bridging the gap between evidence and policy in CAP by providing actionable insights for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers. The coproduction approach with stakeholders enhances the robustness and relevance of the evidence base, facilitating more informed decision-making in CAP efforts.