Approaches to evidence synthesis in international development: a research agenda

Abstract

This paper discusses the spectrum of synthesis methods available to generate, explore and text theory, their value to the field of international development and innovations required to make better use of the primary research available. It argues for clearer distinctions between syntheses produced as public goods, and those tailored to specific circumstances; and strengthening knowledge systems through greater use of maps to navigate existing and missing evidence, harmonised outcomes and measures, and advances in automation technologies. Improved methods and guidance are required for synthesising formative research and investigating contextual factors. Engaging stakeholders and working across academic disciplines support the production of policy-relevant syntheses and inspire methods development. This paper was prepared during the early stages of setting up DFID's Centre for Excellence in Development Impact and Learning (CEDIL), which was commissioned to innovate in the field of impact evaluation; design, commission and implement impact evaluations; and promote the uptake and use of evidence from impact evaluations. We drew on discussions within the CEDIL Intellectual Leadership Team and are particularly grateful to Nancy Cartwright, Rick Davies, Andrew Pullin and Howard White for their comments on earlier versions of this paper.

Innovations in framework synthesis as a systematic review method

“…Newer reports suggest a widening applicability for framework synthesis in conducting rapid reviews and in mixed methods research synthesis, particularly noting the value of framework synthesis when considering complex interventions . Reviews that employ framework synthesis are recommended for, and increasingly demonstrate its utility in: guideline development; health systems, health policy, and international development; and for implementation science …”

“…The second group of reports were instructive in nature, describing the utility and method of framework synthesis by using an illustrative example . A third group of reports situated framework synthesis within multiple evidence synthesis methods …”

“…This grounding ranges from being more aggregative and therefore more useful to test rather than develop theory to more configurative and therefore more suited to explain an intervention's mechanism of effect, or to generate theory . Others take a more pluralist approach, suggesting that it is epistemology‐neutral or hypothetico‐deductive, and assert that framework synthesis may be used for generating, exploring, and/or testing theory . Despite these diverse options which seek to ground the method epistemologically, only one newly published applied review clearly described its epistemological stance .…”

“…Framework synthesis was recommended where there is little or moderate team expertise (common when systematic reviews were moving in to new policy areas) and to expedite knowledge synthesis . It can also assist research teams in their efforts to assure the quality of their work, as it fosters the sharing of emerging data between researchers and allows replicability …”

Systematic Review of Preoperative Patient Readiness

“…Our study used a qualitative approach in data assimilation using framework synthesis, a form of thematic synthesis, which brings together research findings from many different types of studies 44 . The AORN Perioperative Patient Focused Model 4 served as the framework to guide a priori and iterative development of the analysis 45 . We applied the process of thematic analysis through a thematic coding to and across the different studies.…”