Article type
Abstract
Background: The “stress test” of COVID-19, and the many postpandemic initiatives that followed, highlighted the need for more effective strategies, institutional mechanisms, and capacities to systematically mobilize and contextualize the best available evidence for rapid decision-making for effective and equitable public health responses. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in 2015, may provide a useful framework to think about coordinating efforts for impact across the evidence ecosystem.
Objectives: This study built upon the results of a pilot study conducted in 2022 mapping evidence published evidence syntheses to the SDGs and an author survey. The current study was designed to understand the perspectives of members of a global collaborative evidence network concerning the alignment of synthesis work programs to the SDGs.
Methods: A 2-phase study was conducted. Phase 1 employed a short survey distributed to members of the JBI Collaboration (JBIC) administered online via SurveyMonkey and included both closed and open-ended questions. Phase 2 entailed a 90-minute facilitated roundtable discussion with JBIC directors with questions informed by Phase 1.
Results: 38 survey responses were received from across 17 countries, most from academic institutions. Approximately 60% of respondents were extremely to moderately aware of the SDGs, and 80% of respondents rated their importance as extreme to moderate. While 44% indicated they considered the SDGs when determining the focus of their syntheses, 43% did not and 13% believed they were not applicable. Survey respondents and roundtable participants suggested a variety of strategies to encourage consideration of SDGs, including making it a part of the protocol development process, making acknowledgment of SDGs part of the journal publication process, providing “call outs” or grants for specific topics, and including information in events and training.
Conclusions: While positive and constructive suggestions were provided, the results of this study challenged the feasibility and sustainability of utilizing the United Nations SDGs to coordinate synthesis work programs. The relevance of the SDGs across disparate geographic contexts was uncertain, and responses highlighted the need for flexibility to enable synthesis groups to work toward local priorities as well as global health agendas.
Objectives: This study built upon the results of a pilot study conducted in 2022 mapping evidence published evidence syntheses to the SDGs and an author survey. The current study was designed to understand the perspectives of members of a global collaborative evidence network concerning the alignment of synthesis work programs to the SDGs.
Methods: A 2-phase study was conducted. Phase 1 employed a short survey distributed to members of the JBI Collaboration (JBIC) administered online via SurveyMonkey and included both closed and open-ended questions. Phase 2 entailed a 90-minute facilitated roundtable discussion with JBIC directors with questions informed by Phase 1.
Results: 38 survey responses were received from across 17 countries, most from academic institutions. Approximately 60% of respondents were extremely to moderately aware of the SDGs, and 80% of respondents rated their importance as extreme to moderate. While 44% indicated they considered the SDGs when determining the focus of their syntheses, 43% did not and 13% believed they were not applicable. Survey respondents and roundtable participants suggested a variety of strategies to encourage consideration of SDGs, including making it a part of the protocol development process, making acknowledgment of SDGs part of the journal publication process, providing “call outs” or grants for specific topics, and including information in events and training.
Conclusions: While positive and constructive suggestions were provided, the results of this study challenged the feasibility and sustainability of utilizing the United Nations SDGs to coordinate synthesis work programs. The relevance of the SDGs across disparate geographic contexts was uncertain, and responses highlighted the need for flexibility to enable synthesis groups to work toward local priorities as well as global health agendas.