1
|
Cooke SJ, Cook CN, Nguyen VM, Walsh JC, Young N, Cvitanovic C, Grainger MJ, Randall NP, Muir M, Kadykalo AN, Monk KA, Pullin AS. Environmental evidence in action: on the science and practice of evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. ENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE 2023; 12:10. [PMID: 37220478 PMCID: PMC10191815 DOI: 10.1186/s13750-023-00302-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2023] [Accepted: 04/27/2023] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
In civil society we expect that policy and management decisions will be made using the best available evidence. Yet, it is widely known that there are many barriers that limit the extent to which that occurs. One way to overcome these barriers is via robust, comprehensive, transparent and repeatable evidence syntheses (such as systematic reviews) that attempt to minimize various forms of bias to present a summary of existing knowledge for decision-making purposes. Relative to other disciplines (e.g., health care, education), such evidence-based decision-making remains relatively nascent for environment management despite major threats to humanity, such as the climate, pollution and biodiversity crises demonstrating that human well-being is inextricably linked to the biophysical environment. Fortunately, there are a growing number of environmental evidence syntheses being produced that can be used by decision makers. It is therefore an opportune time to reflect on the science and practice of evidence-based decision-making in environment management to understand the extent to which evidence syntheses are embraced and applied in practice. Here we outline a number of key questions related to the use of environmental evidence that need to be explored in an effort to enhance evidence-based decision-making. There is an urgent need for research involving methods from social science, behavioural sciences, and public policy to understand the basis for patterns and trends in environmental evidence use (or misuse or ignorance). There is also a need for those who commission and produce evidence syntheses, as well as the end users of these syntheses to reflect on their experiences and share them with the broader evidence-based practice community to identify needs and opportunities for advancing the entire process of evidence-based practice. It is our hope that the ideas shared here will serve as a roadmap for additional scholarship that will collectively enhance evidence-based decision-making and ultimately benefit the environment and humanity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Steven J. Cooke
- Canadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 Canada
| | - Carly N. Cook
- School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, 25 Rainforest Walk, Clayton, VIC 3800 Australia
| | - Vivian M. Nguyen
- Canadian Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, Department of Biology and Institute of Environmental and Interdisciplinary Science, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Dr., Ottawa, ON K1S 5B6 Canada
| | - Jessica C. Walsh
- School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, 25 Rainforest Walk, Clayton, VIC 3800 Australia
| | - Nathan Young
- School of Sociological and Anthropological Studies, University of Ottawa, 20 University Private, Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5 Canada
| | | | - Matthew J. Grainger
- Norwegian Institute for Nature Research-NINA, Torgarden, 5685, 7485 Trondheim, Norway
| | - Nicola P. Randall
- Centre for Evidence Based Agriculture, Harper Adams University, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 8NB UK
| | - Matt Muir
- U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 USA
| | - Andrew N. Kadykalo
- Department of Natural Resource Sciences, McGill University, 111 Lakeshore Blvd, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC H9X 3V9 Canada
| | - Kathryn A. Monk
- Department of Biosciences, Swansea University, Swansea, SA2 8PP UK
| | - Andrew S. Pullin
- School of Natural Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, LL57 2DG UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dewidar O, Kawala BA, Antequera A, Tricco AC, Tovey D, Straus S, Glover R, Tufte J, Magwood O, Smith M, Ooi CP, Dion A, Goetghebeur M, Reveiz L, Negrini S, Tugwell P, Petkovic J, Welch V. Methodological Guidance For Incorporating Equity When Informing Rapid-Policy And Guideline Development. J Clin Epidemiol 2022; 150:142-153. [PMID: 35863618 PMCID: PMC9359903 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/24/2022] [Revised: 05/30/2022] [Accepted: 07/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Objectives We provide guidance for considering equity in rapid reviews through examples of published COVID-19 rapid reviews. Study Design and Setting This guidance was developed based on a series of methodological meetings, review of internationally renowned guidance such as the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity) guideline. We identified Exemplar rapid reviews by searching COVID-19 databases and requesting examples from our team. Results We proposed the following key steps: 1. involve relevant stakeholders with lived experience in the conduct and design of the review; 2. reflect on equity, inclusion and privilege in team values and composition; 3. develop research question to assess health inequities; 4. conduct searches in relevant disciplinary databases; 5. collect data and critically appraise recruitment, retention and attrition for populations experiencing inequities; 6. analyse evidence on equity; 7. evaluate the applicability of findings to populations experiencing inequities; and 8. adhere to reporting guidelines for communicating review findings. We illustrated these methods through rapid review examples. Conclusion Implementing this guidance could contribute to improving equity considerations in rapid reviews produced in public health emergencies, and help policymakers better understand the distributional impact of diseases on the population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Omar Dewidar
- Bruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, 85 Primrose Ave, Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6M1, Canada.
| | - Brenda Allen Kawala
- Section for Epidemiology and Social Medicine, Department of Public Health, Institute of Medicine-Master in Global Health, The Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Box 414, SE-405 Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Alba Antequera
- Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, 08025 Barcelona, Spain
| | - Andrea C Tricco
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, 209 Victoria St, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada; Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health & Institute of Health, Management, and Policy Evaluation, University of Toronto, 27 King's College Circle, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada; Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality, Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Queen's University, 92 Barrie Street, Room 214, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada
| | | | - Sharon Straus
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, 209 Victoria St, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada
| | - Rebecca Glover
- Department of Health Services Research and Policy, Faculty of Public Health Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK
| | | | - Olivia Magwood
- Bruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, 85 Primrose Ave, Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6M1, Canada; Interdisciplinary School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Thompson Hall, 25 University Private, Ottawa, ON, Canada K1N 7K4
| | - Maureen Smith
- Cochrane Consumer Executive, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Cheow Peng Ooi
- Endocrine Unit, Department of Medicine, Universiti Putra Malaysia Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Anna Dion
- Centre for Implementation Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada
| | - Mireille Goetghebeur
- Unit Methods, Ethics and Participation, INESSS, National Institute for Excellence in Health and Social Services, Montréal, Québec, Canada
| | - Ludovic Reveiz
- Evidence and Intelligence for Action in Health Department, Incident Management System for the Covid-19 Response. Pan American Health Organization, 525 23rd St, Northwest, WA 20037-2895, USA
| | - Stefano Negrini
- Department of Biomedical, Surgical and Dental Sciences, University "La Statale", Milan, Italy; IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy
| | - Peter Tugwell
- Department of Medicine, and School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; WHO Collaborating Centre for Knowledge Translation and Health Technology Assessment in Health Equity, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jennifer Petkovic
- Bruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, 85 Primrose Ave, Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6M1, Canada; WHO Collaborating Centre for Knowledge Translation and Health Technology Assessment in Health Equity, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Vivian Welch
- Bruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, 85 Primrose Ave, Ottawa, Ontario K1R 6M1, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 600 Peter Morand Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario K1G 5Z3, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Khalil H, Ameen D, Zarnegar A. Tools to support the automation of systematic reviews: A scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 144:22-42. [PMID: 34896236 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.12.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/31/2021] [Revised: 11/09/2021] [Accepted: 12/02/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE The objectives of this scoping review are to identify the reliability and validity of the available tools, their limitations and any recommendations to further improve the use of these tools. STUDY DESIGN A scoping review methodology was followed to map the literature published on the challenges and solutions of conducting evidence synthesis using the JBI scoping review methodology. RESULTS A total of 47 publications were included in the review. The current scoping review identified that LitSuggest, Rayyan, Abstractr, BIBOT, R software, RobotAnalyst, DistillerSR, ExaCT and NetMetaXL have potential to be used for the automation of systematic reviews. However, they are not without limitations. The review also identified other studies that employed algorithms that have not yet been developed into user friendly tools. Some of these algorithms showed high validity and reliability but their use is conditional on user knowledge of computer science and algorithms. CONCLUSION Abstract screening has reached maturity; data extraction is still an active area. Developing methods to semi-automate different steps of evidence synthesis via machine learning remains an important research direction. Also, it is important to move from the research prototypes currently available to professionally maintained platforms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hanan Khalil
- School of Psychology and Public Health, Department of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne Campus, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Daniel Ameen
- Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Wellington Road, Clayton Vic 3168, Australia
| | - Armita Zarnegar
- School of Psychology and Public Health, Department of Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne Campus, Victoria, Australia.
- School of Science, Computing and engineering technologies, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Khalil H, Tamara L, Rada G, Akl EA. Challenges of evidence synthesis during the 2020 COVID pandemic: a scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 142:10-18. [PMID: 34718121 PMCID: PMC8550900 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.017] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/28/2021] [Revised: 10/11/2021] [Accepted: 10/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
AIM The objectives of this scoping review are to identify the challenges to conducting evidence synthesis during the COVID-19 pandemic and to propose some recommendations addressing the identified gaps. METHODS A scoping review methodology was followed to map the literature published on the challenges and solutions of conducting evidence synthesis using the Joanna Briggs Methodology of performing scoping review. We searched several databases from the start of the Pandemic in December 2019 until 10th June 2021. RESULTS A total of 28 publications was included in the review. The challenges cited in the included studies have been categorised into four distinct but interconnected themes including: upstream, Evidence synthesis, downstream and contextual challenges. These challenges have been further refined into issues with primary studies, databases, team capacity, process, resources, and context. Several proposals to improve the above challenges included: transparency in primary studies registration and reporting, establishment of online platforms that enables collaboration, data sharing and searching, the use of computable evidence and coordination of efforts at an international level. CONCLUSION This review has highlighted the importance of including artificial intelligence, a framework for international collaboration and a sustained funding model to address many of the shortcomings and ensure we are ready for similar challenges in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hanan Khalil
- School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
| | - Lotfi Tamara
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Gabriel Rada
- Epistemonikos Foundation, UC Evidence Centre, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile
| | - Elie A Akl
- Department of Internal Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact (HEI), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| |
Collapse
|