Article type
Abstract
"Background: Growing literature addressing research inefficiency highlights a substantial overlap, redundancy, and duplication in evidence syntheses, reaching a point where the number of evidence syntheses studies outweighs primary studies on the same topic (1,2). Systematic reviews continue to be conducted without sufficient consideration of existing knowledge or relevance to the public domain. This waste not only represents a loss of valuable resources including time, human effort, and money, but could also undermine the credibility and utility of research findings among clinicians and policymakers.
Aim: To address research waste and optimize resource allocation, this study proposes a staged review process, stakeholder involvement, and evidence gap map product to enhance the usefulness of evidence syntheses for policy stakeholders.
Methods: The context is the topic of implementation of screening programmes or official guidance for population diabetic eye tests. The approach integrates three key components: 1) producing an Evidence and Gap Map (EGM), 2) developing a logic model, and 3) involving people with lived experience or professional expertise in the topic and policy commissioners. A process for drawing on these three sources to inform decisions about future evidence synthesis is described.
Expected results: The EGM with logic model and stakeholder engagement will identify the gaps and highlight pertinent aspects of the topic under investigation. This can enable well-informed discussions before developing research questions for an in-depth evidence synthesis on a subset of the evidence base. In this manner, we will possibly maximise research efficiency by: a) ensuring the availability and quality of evidence (avoiding overlap, and duplication), b) addressing the issues most relevant to those directly affected (reduce redundancy), and c) providing evidence that policymakers can utilize to inform their decisions (promote usability).
Conclusion: We believe the proposed staged review process can act a valuable strategy for optimizing research efficiency and minimizing waste. By combining the strengths of the EGM, a logic model, and stakeholder engagement, this approach offers a robust framework for evidence synthesis that can contribute to more informed research planning and ultimately reduce research waste.
(Note: Abstract with references attached as a supporting document)"
Aim: To address research waste and optimize resource allocation, this study proposes a staged review process, stakeholder involvement, and evidence gap map product to enhance the usefulness of evidence syntheses for policy stakeholders.
Methods: The context is the topic of implementation of screening programmes or official guidance for population diabetic eye tests. The approach integrates three key components: 1) producing an Evidence and Gap Map (EGM), 2) developing a logic model, and 3) involving people with lived experience or professional expertise in the topic and policy commissioners. A process for drawing on these three sources to inform decisions about future evidence synthesis is described.
Expected results: The EGM with logic model and stakeholder engagement will identify the gaps and highlight pertinent aspects of the topic under investigation. This can enable well-informed discussions before developing research questions for an in-depth evidence synthesis on a subset of the evidence base. In this manner, we will possibly maximise research efficiency by: a) ensuring the availability and quality of evidence (avoiding overlap, and duplication), b) addressing the issues most relevant to those directly affected (reduce redundancy), and c) providing evidence that policymakers can utilize to inform their decisions (promote usability).
Conclusion: We believe the proposed staged review process can act a valuable strategy for optimizing research efficiency and minimizing waste. By combining the strengths of the EGM, a logic model, and stakeholder engagement, this approach offers a robust framework for evidence synthesis that can contribute to more informed research planning and ultimately reduce research waste.
(Note: Abstract with references attached as a supporting document)"