Producing policy relevant systematic reviews: navigating the policy-research interface

Abstract

This study employed insider research and reflective practice to investigate exchanges across the research-policy interface to understand the practice of producing policy-relevant systematic reviews.Interviewees came from 11 systematic reviews or review programmes which spanned four models of policy relevant reviews and between them provided evidence for understanding policy problems, comparing policy options, or implementing policy decisions. No review methodology was found to be uniquely appropriate for policy-relevant systematic reviews. It was the mutual engagement across the research-policy interface that made the reviews policy relevant. This involved thinking about the issues and seeing them from multiple viewpoints to identify and shape questions; this prompted implicit or explicit value driven debates. The intellectual work to shape a policy-relevant systematic review is an iterative, collective endeavour that requires partners from either side of the policyresearch interface to engage with the unfamiliar, listen, challenge and co-construct questions and answers.2

Transdisciplinary working to shape systematic reviews and interpret the findings: commentary

“…Although there is widespread support for involving stakeholders when conducting systematic reviews [15], current guidance is directed more towards who to engage than how to work with them creatively to shape the review. Insights about such social interactions emerged from insider research [16,17] and reflective practice addressing the early stages of the systematic review process when refining questions and framing reviews addressing broad issues [18]. From this insider research and reflective practice, we now recognise the parallels between shaping reviews and two other forms of creative thinking processes: qualitative analysis and non-directive counselling [18].…”

“…Insights about such social interactions emerged from insider research [16,17] and reflective practice addressing the early stages of the systematic review process when refining questions and framing reviews addressing broad issues [18]. From this insider research and reflective practice, we now recognise the parallels between shaping reviews and two other forms of creative thinking processes: qualitative analysis and non-directive counselling [18]. While the former examines observations for patterns and meaning to make sense of data, the latter refrains from interpretation or explanation but encourages others to talk freely and discover patterns and meaning themselves to make sense of their own experience.…”

“…Originally developed to help individuals address personal problems [19], its core element of active (or reflective) listening has been subsequently developed and applied to support creative problem solving by groups [23]. The non-directive counselling approach has been helpful in supporting interdisciplinary review teams (inclusive of stakeholders) to solve the problem of shaping a conceptual framework for their review that will accommodate the interests of the review funder and the framings of existing relevant studies [18]. As a stepwise process for qualitative analysis and non-directive counselling has been clarified, shared and incorporated into text books and training programmes (Box 3), we see an opportunity to clarify and practice their application for shaping systematic reviews.…”

“…Environmental Evidence *Correspondence: sandy.oliver@ucl.ac.uk 1 EPPI-Centre, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK Full list of author information is available at the end of the article Box 1 Definitions of key terms that describe the process and products of systematically reviewing policy-relevant research Systematic reviews of research inspect research reports using explicit, accountable and rigorous research methods [7] Research synthesis aims to integrate the findings of different studies to answer the review question leading to knowledge that is greater than the sum of the individual studies [7] Policy relevant Systematic reviews can be considered relevant to policy (and policy makers) when they present findings clearly for policy audiences to: illuminate policy problems; challenge or develop policy assumptions; or offer evidence about the impact or implementation of policy options; and take into account diversity of people and contexts [18] Transdisciplinary research integrates the natural, social and health sciences in a humanities context, and in so doing transcends each of their traditional boundaries. It does so by scientists and other stakeholders working together beyond their traditional roles to transcend traditional boundaries to investigate systems in a holistic way [8] Stakeholders in systematic reviews include any person, organisation or social group that may influence or be influenced by the process of preparing or using systematic reviews or by the decisions informed by their findings decisions subsequently stalling with programmes failing to deliver better policy outcomes.…”

Approaches to evidence synthesis in international development: a research agenda

“…One solution has been two-stage reviews that first describe the nature and scale of the research available and then, before synthesising the findings, considers reducing the scope taking into account the most important sub-questions and the type of studies available likely to provide reliable answers. Discussions for refining review questions, whether employing two-stage reviews or not, involve lateral thinking and constructive conflict to navigate the research-policy interface (Oliver et al, 2017). Generally, this initial stage in conducting reviews has received very little attention.…”