SHOW ME the evidence: Features of an approach to reliably getting research evidence to those who need it

Related Organizations

Lanzhou University

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine

Makerere University

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Oswaldo Cruz Foundation

Table of Contents

• SHOW ME the evidence: 1
• Features of an approach to reliably getting research evidence to those who need it 1
• The world is poised for a step-change improvement in how we use evidence to address societal challenges. 1
• Given the speed at which plans are being made to support this once-in-a-generation transformation, the Implementation Council of the Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges developed a working version of the features of an approac... 1
• Drawing an acronym from the first letter of each feature, the ‘SHOW ME the evidence’ features are: 1
• 1) Support systems locally that use many forms of research evidence to help address local priorities 1
• 2) Harmonized efforts globally that make it easier to learn from others around the world 1
• 3) Open-science approaches that make it the norm to build on what others have done 1
• 4) Waste-reduction efforts that make the most of investments in evidence support and in research 1
• 5) Measured communications that clarify what we know from existing evidence and with what caveats 1
• 6) Equity and efficiency in all aspects of this work. 1
• The 100+ contributing authors from across the ‘evidence synthesis and support’ world want to ensure that our future plans are firmly rooted in an agreed-upon summary of all we have learned together over these past four or so years, and to signal a mut... 1
• Given that much of the momentum for transformation is currently focused on living evidence syntheses, and the infrastructure needed to support them, we give this form of evidence disproportionate focus here. 1
• An even more diverse set of partners should be engaged in designing and executing an inclusive process for the refinement or even re-shaping of these features over time, as well as their ongoing operationalization. This includes more types of decision... 1
• 1) Support systems locally that use many forms of research evidence to help address local priorities 1
• Every jurisdiction needs an evidence-support system that can reliably get whatever forms of evidence are needed to address a local priority into the hands of those who need it, when they need it, in whatever form they need it, and with any required ca... 1
• Locally can mean nations as well as sub-national jurisdictions like provinces and cities. It can mean formal regional groupings of countries like the European Union and informal regional groupings of small countries with shared challenges. It can also... 1
• The forms of evidence can include research evidence from the ‘local’ context (e.g., data analytics, evaluation, and behavioural / implementation research), research evidence from around the world (i.e., evidence synthesis), and other types of informat... 1
• Addressing a local priority is ideally informed by an understanding of a problem (and its causes and alternative ways of framing it), options to address the problem (including those already in use at a small scale), implementation considerations, and ... 2
• Those who need research evidence can include government policymakers (from central agencies like Treasury, line departments like education, and legislatures), organizational leaders (from both non-governmental organizations and private companies), pro... 2
• Many decision-makers need actionable insights from research evidence quickly when a ‘window of opportunity’ opens. Sometimes these windows are open for days, other times weeks, and rarely for longer. Evidence support can now work at the same speed as ... 2
• Some decision-makers may want the evidence presented to them as ‘best buys’ (e.g., Global Education Evidence Advisory Panel), others by broad approach (e.g., Education Endowment Foundation), and still others by branded program (e.g., IES What Works Cl... 2
• Applicability can mean both for local contexts and for groups in a range of contexts, including groups most affected by historical and acute inequities. 2
• 2) Harmonized efforts globally that make it easier to learn from others around the world 2
• One aspect of evidence support that can now best be undertaken through harmonized efforts globally is to provide regularly updated summaries of what we have learned from around the world and how these findings vary by groups and contexts. 2
• ‘Living evidence synthesis’ is a relatively new approach to producing and maintaining these summaries.(2) The take-up of this approach accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic and continues to accelerate now. As we return to with feature 6, artificial... 2
• Groups of decision-makers are beginning to come together to identify shared priorities and to call for living evidence syntheses that address these priorities. We are seeing this happen among UN agencies and their member states (through the Global SDG... 2
• Groups of living evidence synthesis producers are now working collaboratively to meet the needs of decision-makers. Longstanding leaders in the evidence-synthesis field, like the Campbell Collaboration and Cochrane, have reorganized themselves to do s... 2
• Early movers and thought leaders are emerging among funders. They can invest in evidence-synthesis infrastructure in its broadest sense, including: 1) demand-side engagement through existing intermediaries; 2) data sharing and reusing; 3) safe and res... 2
• We have witnessed some other aspects of evidence support be undertaken through harmonized efforts globally. Step-change improvements in data analytics across broad areas of human development, in modeling of climate change, in evaluations of multilater... 3
• We urgently need to apply a collective-impact approach to living evidence syntheses. Contributors to the enterprise can be judged by whether their actions align with this approach. We also need to agree on flexible criteria for starting living evidenc... 3
• In time we also need to apply it to forms of evidence that haven’t yet benefited from global coordination and, most critically, to improving intersections among the many needed forms of evidence. The latter will require new forums with a demand-side o... 3
• 3) Open-science approaches that make it the norm to build on what others have done 3
• A powerful enabler of evidence support is open data, particularly for the data that can be extracted from existing evidence and that can help with understanding its currency, quality, and local applicability. 3
• Such data can be extracted once or – in the case of risk-of-bias and other quality assessments – be created once, and used many times. Consider the case of an evidence-support unit in a given country that is asked to summarize what has been learned fr... 3
• While this is already being done without delay at a small scale because of the generosity of a small number of living evidence synthesis producers, it can be the ‘new normal’ for all such producers. Making it so will mean finding new ways to sustainab... 3
• More generally, all evidence producers can commit to the FAIR data principles of findable, accessible, interoperable and re-usable. They can also commit to the CARE principles for Indigenous data governance – collective benefit, authority to control, ... 3
• In time we also need to operationalize and sustainably fund other open-science approaches in how we provide evidence support to decision-makers, including using open-source software, publishing in open-access publications (including the evidence maps ... 4
• 4) Waste-reduction efforts that make the most of investments in evidence support and in research 4
• Many labour-intensive aspects of providing evidence support are needlessly duplicated within countries (by different groups), across countries, and over time. An effort to address a local priority can begin with a profile of existing evidence from the... 4
• Much applied primary research does not address current or likely future decision-maker priorities or does not have the design or methodological characteristics needed to add value in responses to likely questions about an area of priority. An effort t... 4
• Much applied secondary research (i.e. evidence synthesis) also does not address decision-maker priorities or does not have the design or methodological characteristics or the group and context sensitivities needed to add value. An effort to fund or un... 4
• 5) Measured communications that clarify what we know from existing evidence and with what caveats 4
• Sharing what has been learned about a local priority means identifying the many forms of evidence needed to answer questions about the priority, looking in the right places for each form of evidence, summarizing what we have learned from each form of ... 4
• Those engaged in communications and science advice need to recognize that their value accrues in significant part from their ability to respond to the priorities of decision-makers with all of the available evidence (not just the evidence that they he... 4
• Communicators and advisors also need to recognize that evidence is one of many inputs to decisions and to deliver their messages with corresponding humility. They need to recognize that evidence doesn’t speak for itself and that how we communicate can... 4
• 6) Equity and efficiency in all aspects of this work 5
• Providers and funders of evidence support can put equity, diversity and inclusion at the heart of all we do, including in governance, processes (including what data are captured about whom), and outcomes. This means sharing capacity, creating opportun... 5
• Providers of evidence support should also incorporate appropriate technology, including artificial intelligence, in workflows as performance metrics show it can be done efficiently and equitably, including without amplifying existing biases. As noted ... 5
• Conclusion 5
• Actions speak louder than words. If we are to deliver on the promise of a step-change improvement in how we use evidence to address societal challenges, then we need to each do our part to put in place the features of an approach to reliably getting r... 5
• You may already be doing great work. Please keep it up. 5
• If you want to embrace a new approach and don’t know where you can best fit in, check out the Global Evidence Commission’s work in formalizing and strengthening national (and sub-national) evidence support systems, enhancing and leveraging the global ... 5
• References 5
• John N Lavis 6
• Jeremy M Grimshaw 6
• Ruth Stewart 6
• Julian Elliott 6
• Will Moy 6
• Joerg J Meerpohl 6
• 1 McMaster Health Forum and Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada 6
• 2 Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada 6
• 3 Future Evidence Foundation and University College London and University of Cape Town, Johannesburg, South Africa 6
• 4 Future Evidence Foundation and Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 6
• 5 Campbell Collaboration, London, UK 6
• 6 Cochrane Germany and Institute for Evidence in Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany 6
• John Lavis and Jeremy Grimshaw are co-leads of the Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges. All authors are members of its Implementation Council. John Lavis is council chair, Ruth Stewart is director, Julian Elliott is treasurer ... 6
• Contributing authors (listed in alphabetical order by surname and with only a single organizational affiliation that best represented their intersection with the ‘SHOW ME the evidence’ features) 6
• Agoritsas T (MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation, Norway); Akl E (Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Lebanon); Albright K (UNICEF); Allen C (Evidence Aid); Aromataris EC (JBI); Askie LM (World Health Organization); Bakrani... 6
• Correspondence 7
• John N Lavis, McMaster Health Forum, 1280 Main St. West, MML-417, Hamilton, ON, Canada, L8S 4L6. Email: lavisj@mcmaster.ca 7
• Preprint citation 7
• Lavis JN, Grimshaw JM, Stewart R, Elliott J, Moy W, Meerpohl JJ on behalf of the contributing authors. SHOW ME the evidence: Features of an approach to reliably getting research evidence to those who need it. Hamilton: Global Commission on Evidence to... 7