Evidence for Policy Making: Some Reflections on the Application of Systematic Reviews to Housing Research

Alison, Wallace; Croucher, Karen; Bevan, Mark; Jackson, Karen; O’Malley, Lisa; Quilgars, Deborah

doi:10.1080/02673030500484935

Cited by 22 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 18 publications

(25 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The process is both systematic and documented such that, if repeated, similar results and conclusions would be found, and thus reflects the replicability principle of the scientific method more broadly. The benefits of systematic literature reviews for decision makers and planners include: (a) less reliance on a single research study and the opportunity to view possibly divergent studies together, facilitating a comparison of the findings and providing a synthesis of the challenges and advantages of models, processes, or strategies from a variety of perspectives [14, 21, 22], and (b) time-savings since the underpinning of systematic literature reviews is the rigorous evaluation and synthesis of the findings reported in the literature making for easier access to evidence-based information [14, 21]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health systems integration: state of the evidence

Armitage¹,

Suter²,

Oelke³

et al. 2009

Int J Integr Care

304

277

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIntegrated health systems are considered a solution to the challenge of maintaining the accessibility and integrity of healthcare in numerous jurisdictions worldwide. However, decision makers in a Canadian health region indicated they were challenged to find evidence-based information to assist with the planning and implementation of integrated healthcare systems.MethodsA systematic literature review of peer-reviewed literature from health sciences and business databases, and targeted grey literature sources.ResultsDespite the large number of articles discussing integration, significant gaps in the research literature exist. There was a lack of high quality, empirical studies providing evidence on how health systems can improve service delivery and population health. No universal definition or concept of integration was found and multiple integration models from both the healthcare and business literature were proposed in the literature. The review also revealed a lack of standardized, validated tools that have been systematically used to evaluate integration outcomes. This makes measuring and comparing the impact of integration on system, provider and patient level challenging.Discussion and conclusionHealthcare is likely too complex for a one-size-fits-all integration solution. It is important for decision makers and planners to choose a set of complementary models, structures and processes to create an integrated health system that fits the needs of the population across the continuum of care. However, in order to have evidence available, decision makers and planners should include evaluation for accountability purposes and to ensure a better understanding of the effectiveness and impact of health systems integration.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health systems integration: state of the evidence

Armitage¹,

Suter²,

Oelke³

et al. 2009

Int J Integr Care

304

277

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bambra (2005) highlights the difficulties inherent in attributing impact to specific policies (and thus their potential impact in other contexts) when the environment in which these policies are evaluated is already shaped by other policies that are themselves evolving. In a similar vein, Wallace et al (2006) point to the significant social and economic changes that can take place over time and which may confound external validity.…”

Section: Internal Versus External Validitymentioning

confidence: 94%

Systematic reviews in social policy: to go forward, do we first need to look back?

Pearson¹

2007

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

debateKey words systemic reviews • evidence-based policy and practice • Donald Campbell Systematic reviews in social policy: to go forward, do we first need to look back? Mark PearsonEnglish This article argues that the development of systematic review methods for social policy and practice in the UK has been inhibited in two ways. First, there has been insufficient engagement with the breadth of Donald Campbell's thought on research methods and knowledge cumulation. To this end, the article outlines the contribution that a fuller understanding of Donald Campbell's work could make to the development of such methods. Second, debates about the merits of systematic review methods have often shown only a partial understanding of other approaches. The article thus seeks to identify key areas of commonality and difference between approaches to systematic reviews with a view to stimulating methodological development through constructive debate.Français Cet article défend le point de vue que le développement des méthodes de revues systématiques en politique et en pratique sociale au Royaume Uni a été entravé de deux façons. D'abord, on n'a pas suffisamment largement tenu compte de la pensée de Donald Campbell sur les méthodes de recherche et le cumul de connaissances. Dans ce but, l'article donne les grandes lignes de la contribution qu'une meilleure compréhension du travail de Donald Campbell pourrait faire au développement de telles méthodes. Deuxièmement, les débats sur les mérites des méthodes de revues systématiques n'ont souvent montré qu'une compréhension partielle d'autres approches. L'article cherche ainsi à identifier les domaines clé de similitude et de différence entre les approches aux revues systématiques dans le but de stimuler un développement méthodologique à travers un débat constructif.Español Este artículo discute que el desarrollo de métodos de revisión sistemática para la política social y práctica en el Reino Unido ha sido inhibida de dos maneras. Primero, no ha habido suficiente compromiso con la amplitud del pensamiento de Donald Campbell en métodos de investigación y acumulación de conocimiento. Con este fin, el artículo destaca que la contribución que un mayor entendimiento del trabajo de Donald Campbell podría hacer que se desarrollasen tales métodos. Segundo, los debates acerca de los méritos de los métodos de revisión sistemática han mostrado con frecuencia sólo un entendimiento parcial de otros enfoques. El artículo por lo tanto busca identificar áreas claves de similitud y diferencia entre enfoques de revisiones sistemáticas con una opinión para estimular desarrollo metodológico a través de un debate constructivo.

show abstract

“…For example, when we are assessing the internal validity of comparative effectiveness studies, we intend to use a standard tool for assessing risk of bias and for other study types, such as process evaluations, we intend to assess them using a modified version of the Wallace et al . quality appraisal tool for qualitative studies [10]. For the purposes of transparency, we shall document our decisions about rigour (as appraised by the tools) and relevance (the contribution the piece makes to the review as a whole).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shared care: protocol for a realist review

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundShared care (an enhanced information exchange over and above routine outpatient letters) is commonly used to improve care coordination and communication between a specialist and primary care services for people with long-term conditions. Evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shared care is mixed. Informed decision-making for targeting shared care requires a greater understanding of how it works, for whom it works, in what contexts and why. This protocol outlines how realist review methods can be used to synthesise evidence on shared care for long-term conditions.A further aim of the review is to explore economic evaluations of shared care. Economic evaluations are difficult to synthesise due to problems in accounting for contextual differences that impact on resource use and opportunity costs. Realist review methods have been suggested as a way to overcome some of these issues, so this review will also assess whether realist review methods are amenable to synthesising economic evidence.Methods/DesignDatabase and web searching will be carried out in order to find relevant evidence to develop and test programme theories about how shared care works. The review will have two phases. Phase 1 will concentrate on the contextual conditions and mechanisms that influence how shared care works, in order to develop programme theories, which partially explain how it works. Phase 2 will focus on testing these programme theories. A Project Reference Group made up of health service professionals and people with actual experience of long-term conditions will be used to ground the study in real-life experience. Review findings will be disseminated through local and sub-national networks for integrated care and long-term conditions.DiscussionThis realist review will explore why and for whom shared care works, in order to support decision-makers working to improve the effectiveness of care for people outside hospital. The development of realist review methods to take into account cost and cost-effectiveness evidence is particularly innovative and challenging, and if successful will offer a new approach to synthesising economic evidence. This systematic review protocol is registered on the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42012002842).

show abstract

Evidence for Policy Making: Some Reflections on the Application of Systematic Reviews to Housing Research

Cited by 22 publications

References 18 publications

Health systems integration: state of the evidence

Health systems integration: state of the evidence

Systematic reviews in social policy: to go forward, do we first need to look back?

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shared care: protocol for a realist review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About