Microfinance is seen as a key development tool, and despite the current deepening crisis within the industry, it continues to grow in sub-Saharan Africa. We systematically reviewed the evidence of the impacts of micro-credit and micro-savings on poor people in sub-Saharan Africa. We considered impacts on income, savings, expenditure, and the accumulation of assets, as well as non-financial outcomes including health, nutrition, food security, education, child labor, women's empowerment, housing, job creation, and social cohesion. The available evidence shows that microfinance does harm, as well as good, to the livelihoods of the poor.

Background If research addresses the questions of relevance to patients and clinicians, decision-makers will be better equipped to design and deliver health services which meet their needs. To this end, a number of initiatives have engaged patients and clinicians in setting research agendas. This paper aimed to scope the research literature addressing such efforts.

This paper presents a coherent framework for designing and evaluating public involvement in research by drawing on an extensive literature and the authors' experience. The framework consists of three key interrelated dimensions: the drivers for involvement; the processes for involvement and the impact of involvement. The pivotal point in this framework is the opportunity for researchers and others to exchange ideas. This opportunity results from the processes which bring them together and which support their debates and decisions. It is also the point at which research that is in the public interest is open to public influence and the point at which the interaction can also influence anyone directly involved. Judicious choice of methods for bringing people together, and supporting their debate and decisions, depends upon the drivers of those involved; these vary with their characteristics, particularly their degree of enthusiasm and experience, and their motivation.

No abstract

Objective To examine parentsÕ and health professionalsÕ views on informed choice in newborn blood spot screening, and assess information and communication needs.Design and participants A qualitative study involving semi-structured telephone interviews and focus groups with 47 parents of children who were either found to be affected or unaffected by the screened conditions, and 35 health professionals with differing roles in newborn blood spot screening programmes across the UK.Results and conclusions Parents and health professionals recognize a tension between informed choice in newborn blood spot screening and public health screening for children. Some propose resolving this tension with more information and better communication, and some with rigorous dissent procedures. This paper argues that neither extensive parent information, nor a signed dissent model adequately address this tension. Instead, clear, brief and accurate parent information and effective communication between health professionals and parents, which take into account parentsÕ information needs, are required, if informed choice and public health screening for children are to coexist successfully.

People have a stake in conservation and environmental management both for their own interests and the sake of the environment itself. Environmental decision-making has changed somewhat in recent decades to account for unintentional impacts on human wellbeing. The involvement of stakeholders in environmental projects has been recognised as critical for ensuring their success and equally for the syntheses of evidence of what works, where, and for whom, providing key benefits and challenges. As a result of increased interest in systematic reviews of complex management issues, there is a need for guidance in best practices for stakeholder engagement. Here, we propose a framework for stakeholder engagement in systematic reviews/systematic maps, highlighting recommendations and advice that are critical for effective, efficient and meaningful engagement of stakeholders. The discussion herein aims to provide a toolbox of stakeholder engagement activities, whilst also recommending approaches from stakeholder engagement research that may prove to be particularly useful for systematic reviews and systematic maps.

Health research funders in the UK now ask applicants to state how their research will involve patients and members of the public. Such involvement can help with questions that researchers repeatedly face: about improving trial recruitment, response rates and follow-up. Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research is usually presented in the form of a ladder, from a low rung where studies are led by researchers with no patient involvement, to a high rung where studies are patient-led. This hierarchy does not sit well with many clinicians and academics whose expertise appears to have been downgraded. This article argues that research quality and relevance are optimised when patient expertise is integrated with researchers' and policy-makers' expertise, and each role acknowledged and valued, illustrated by an alternative model for PPI which places research and expertise at the centre of the involvement enterprise.

This paper is the initial Position Statement of Evidence Synthesis International, a new partnership of organizations that produce, support and use evidence synthesis around the world. The paper (i) argues for the importance of synthesis as a research exercise to clarify what is known from research evidence to inform policy, practice and personal decision making; (ii) discusses core issues for research synthesis such as the role of research evidence in decision making, the role of perspectives, participation and democracy in research and synthesis as a core component of evidence ecosystems; (iii) argues for 9 core principles for ESI on the nature and role of research synthesis; and (iv) lists the 5 main goals of ESI as a coordinating partnership for promoting and enabling the production and use of research synthesis. Background Evidence synthesis Research can be defined as critical social enquiry for public use [2]. Research evidence is one of many factors