Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: A large quantity of evidence is available, however, it is dispersed in various databases, is of diverse quality, and is seldom synthesized and packaged in a way that responds to a specific policy question. Different methods exist for synthesizing evidence and packaging evidence for policy-makers. As evidence in policy-making comprises findings from research, but also other types of knowledge, a wide range of syntheses methods are needed to address policy concerns. To date, clear guidance on selecting an appropriate knowledge synthesis method is lacking.
Objectives: We developed a practical manual for authors to establish control over the choice of methods and writing process of evidence synthesis reports targeting policy-makers.
Methods: An expert/system- and intuitive-based pedagogical design method (Edmonds 1994, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30220096) was used leaning on expertise to utilize complex but existing knowledge, as well as on heuristics, past experiences (e.g. in the synthesis writing process), knowledge and intuition to guide the design. Users of the manual were considered central. The material consisted of 200 journal articles, textbooks, handbooks and unpublished between 2005-2015 searched in Google Scholar, that captures the major databases, and manually in the bibliographies.
Results: We identified nine main steps in the synthesis writing process and four key questions to be answered to guide the selection of an appropriate synthesis method. These steps were identified in all kinds of synthesis processes, but how the steps were implemented in practice varied across the synthesis methods. Questions to be answered are: why is this of interest to policy-makers; what 'story' does the evidence tell; what choices does the evidence suggest to be most effective/appropriate/feasible/acceptable/etc.; and what are the implications for policymakers?
Conclusions: There are many guidelines available for synthesizing and reporting the results of studies, which have increased the standardization of reporting study results and help to ensure that crucial information is available for translating the evidence into practice and policy.
Objectives: We developed a practical manual for authors to establish control over the choice of methods and writing process of evidence synthesis reports targeting policy-makers.
Methods: An expert/system- and intuitive-based pedagogical design method (Edmonds 1994, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30220096) was used leaning on expertise to utilize complex but existing knowledge, as well as on heuristics, past experiences (e.g. in the synthesis writing process), knowledge and intuition to guide the design. Users of the manual were considered central. The material consisted of 200 journal articles, textbooks, handbooks and unpublished between 2005-2015 searched in Google Scholar, that captures the major databases, and manually in the bibliographies.
Results: We identified nine main steps in the synthesis writing process and four key questions to be answered to guide the selection of an appropriate synthesis method. These steps were identified in all kinds of synthesis processes, but how the steps were implemented in practice varied across the synthesis methods. Questions to be answered are: why is this of interest to policy-makers; what 'story' does the evidence tell; what choices does the evidence suggest to be most effective/appropriate/feasible/acceptable/etc.; and what are the implications for policymakers?
Conclusions: There are many guidelines available for synthesizing and reporting the results of studies, which have increased the standardization of reporting study results and help to ensure that crucial information is available for translating the evidence into practice and policy.