An emerging framework for including different types of evidence in systematic reviews for public policy
Abstract
Evidence-informed policy and practice call on research addressing a broad range of research questions: evaluating the need for, and development, implementation, acceptability and effectiveness of interventions. Synthesizing this evidence requires methods that integrate the findings from diverse study designs. This article reports the development of a new model of research synthesis for this purpose. On completion of a series of substantive reviews, methodological reflections addressed: the interrelationship between review questions, relevant theory and values within the review process; methodological similarities and differences with more conventional reviews of effectiveness; the added value in terms of conclusions and specific recommendations; and the relevance to public policy.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Six quality criteria were adapted and assessed during data extraction.
“Six quality criteria were adapted from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre and assessed during data extraction (13)”
From The impact of digital interventions on help-seeking behaviour for mental health problems: a systematic literature review (2022) · cites this paper as [13]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 221
- Authors
- Oliver, S., Harden, A., Rees, R., Shepherd, J., Brunton, G., Garcia, J., & Oakley, A.
- Affiliations
- University of London (GB)
- University of Southampton (GB)
- Venue
- Evaluation
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-10
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 428-446
- ISSN
- 1356-3890 (ISSN-L)
- 1461-7153
- OpenAlex
- W2146272865
- Cited by
- 221
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 2.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Evaluation (publishedVersion)
- UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- evidence-informed policy, evidence synthesis, systematic reviews, mixed methods synthesis, intervention effectiveness, implementation evaluation, acceptability, public policy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
