Project description:The research question guiding the production of the youth employment evidence and gap map (EGM) is stated as follows: What is the nature and extent of the evidence base of impact evaluations and systematic reviews on youth employment programmes in the world? The primary objective of is to catalogue impact evaluations and systematic reviews on youth employment interventions to enhance discoverability of evidence by decision makers, development patterners and researchers, so as to promote evidence-based decision making in programming and delivery of youth employment initiatives. This evidence gap map is also a primary input into the implementation of Mastercard Foundation's strategy titled "Africa Works: Mastercard Foundation Strategy 2018-2030", which points out sharing of evidence-based knowledge and innovation with stakeholders as a key strategy to be used (Mastercard Foundation). The time frame for the development of the youth EGM will run from the last quarter of 2019 to December 2020. The five secondary objectives are: (i) To construct a framework for the classification of youth employment effectiveness studies. The objective will be achieved through the development of an intervention and outcome framework using an engaged consultative process involving the review team, Mastercard Foundation and other stakeholders. (ii) To identify available evidence, and clusters of evidence, including its quality rating. This will involve activities such as identification of studies using a standardised study search strategy, screening and coding of studies in EPPI Reviewer 4, which is a web-based software program for production of reviews. (iii) To create a map of youth employment effectiveness studies equipped with an appealing user-friendly web-based search content visualisation using interactive mapping software. To achieve this object, data coded in EPPI Reviewer 4 will be exported to another software (EPPI mapper) which is designed for generating EGMs. (iv) To produce a narrative report of the youth employment EGM. This will be achieved through analysis of data in EPPI Reviewer 4 and report writing. To disseminate the EGM to users to increase awareness to support evidence-informed decision-making across countries. We will achieve this objective by organising dissemination workshops, participating in conferences and hosting the evidence and gap on our websites.
Project description:Smoking remains one of the leading risk factors contributing to the global burden of disease. Sub-optimal implementation of evidence-based tobacco control and smoking cessation practice is a major challenge despite a substantial evidence base for interventions to increase smoking cessation globally. We aim to develop an Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) to collate the existing evidence and identify the gap in research on interventions to increase smoking cessation worldwide. A conceptual framework was developed followed by the formulation of a search strategy with key search terms and search period (1970 - date of search). The search will be conducted in relevant bibliographic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, Embase, SCOPUS), systematic reviews databases (e.g. Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs systematic reviews, EPPI-Reviewer) and impact evaluation databases (e.g. 3ie Impact Evaluation repository and Cochrane tobacco addiction group specialized register) with support from a research librarian. Subsequently, two coders will screen and retrieve systematic reviews and individual impact evaluation studies. The adapted SURE (Supporting the Use of Research Evidence) checklist will be used to evaluate the quality of the included systematic reviews. A narrative synthesis from the systematic review findings and line listing of the impact evaluations will form the basis of this EGM. The EGM report will be presented in an interactive visual format. The proposed EGM will organise the pieces of evidence generated in systematic reviews and impact evaluations on smoking cessation interventions and identify the current research gaps, if any. The findings will inform evidence-based practice and future research.
Project description:Obstetric fistula is prevalent in low- and middle-income countries, with between 50,000 and 100,000 new cases each year. The World Health Organization aims to eradicate it by 2030 but a clear idea of the extant evidence is unavailable. This evidence map compiled evidence on treatments for obstetric fistula to identify potential knowledge gaps. The protocol for this work was published on the Open Science Framework (DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/H7J35). A survey was developed, piloted and distributed online through organisations with an interest in obstetric fistula and snowballing. Results informed the evidence map framework. Searches were run on MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Global Index Medicus and ScanMedicine on 16 February 2022 to identify potentially eligible systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies and case-control studies. Forward and backward citation chaining was undertaken on relevant systematic reviews and included studies. Studies were screened, coded and assessed for risk of bias by a single reviewer, with a second checking a proportion. The evidence map results were compared to survey results. Thirty-nine people responded to the survey, half of which were clinicians. Of 9796 records identified, 37 reports of 28 studies were included in the evidence map. Many included studies were at some risk of bias; for observational studies, this was predominantly due to lack of controlling for confounders. Most studies (71%) assessed surgical interventions alone. Reporting on other intervention types was limited. Regarding outcome measures most important to survey respondents, 24 studies reported on cure/improvement in obstetric fistula and 20 on cure/improvement in urinary incontinence. Reporting on quality of life, faecal incontinence and sexual function was limited. There is currently little robust evidence to guide patients and practitioners on the most effective treatment option for obstetric fistula. Further research is required to address evidence gaps identified.
Project description:This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: to identify the existing evidence that considers the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions in preventing terrorism and radicalisation and to identify existing gaps in the evidence where new primary research could be undertaken and where future synthesis could be conducted.
Project description:This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: This EGM aims to map available evidence on the effects of in-person interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness across all age groups in all settings.
Project description:This is the protocol for a evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: to identify existing research and gaps in evidence according to the types of interventions, settings, study design and outcomes; to use the EGM findings to inform subsequent systematic reviews and to identify gaps in evidence to inform future research, policy or practice.
Project description:BackgroundCriminal justice agencies are well positioned to help prevent the radicalisation of individuals and groups, stop those radicalised from engaging in violence, and reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks. This Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) presents the existing evidence and gaps in the evaluation research.ObjectivesTo identify the existing evidence that considers the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions in preventing radicalisation, violent extremism and terrorism.Search methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of the academic and grey literature to locate relevant studies for the EGM. Our search locations included the Global Policing Database (GPD), eight electronic platforms encompassing over 20 academic databases, five trial registries and over 30 government and non-government websites. The systematic search was carried out between 8 June 2022 and 1 August 2022.Selection criteriaWe captured criminal justice interventions published between January 2002 and December 2021 that aimed to prevent radicalisation, violent extremism, and/or terrorism. Criminal justice agencies were broadly defined to include police, courts, and corrections (both custodial and community). Eligible populations included criminal justice practitioners, places, communities or family members, victims, or individuals/groups who are radicalised or at risk of becoming radicalised. Our map includes systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, and strong quasi-experimental studies. We placed no limits on study outcomes, language, or geographic location.Data collection and analysisOur screening approach differed slightly for the different sources, but all documents were assessed in the systematic review software program DistillerSR on the same final eligibility criteria. Once included, we extracted information from studies using a standardised form that allowed us to collect key data for our EGM. Eligible systematic reviews were assessed for risk of bias using the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool.Main resultsThe systematic search identified 63,763 unique records. After screening, there were 70 studies eligible for the EGM (from 71 documents), of which two were systematic reviews (assessed as moderate quality), 16 were randomised controlled trials, and 52 were strong quasi-experimental studies. The majority of studies (n = 58) reported on policing interventions. Limited evidence was found related to courts or corrections interventions. The impact of these interventions was measured by a wide variety of outcomes (n = 50). These measures were thematically grouped under nine broad categories including (1) terrorism, (2) extremism or radicalisation, (3) non-terror related crime and recidivism, (4) citizen perceptions/intentions toward the criminal justice system and government, (5) psychosocial, (6) criminal justice practitioner behaviours/attitudes/beliefs, (7) racially targeted criminal justice practices, (8) investigation efficacy, and (9) organisational factors. The most commonly assessed outcomes included measures of terrorism, investigation efficacy, and organisational factors. Very limited research assessed intervention effectiveness against measures of extremism and/or radicalisation.Authors’ conclusionsConducting high-quality evaluation research on rare and hidden problems presents a challenge for criminal justice research. The map reveals a number of significant gaps in studies evaluating criminal justice responses to terrorism and radicalisation. We conclude that future research should focus attention on studies that consolidate sound measurement of terrorism-related outcomes to better capture the potential benefits and harms of counter-terrorism programs, policies and practices which involve criminal justice agencies.
Project description:BackgroundSocial isolation and loneliness are more common in older adults and are associated with a serious impact on their well-being, mental health, physical health, and longevity. They are a public health concern highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, hence the need for digital technology tools to enable remotely delivered interventions to alleviate the impact of social isolation and loneliness during the COVID-19 restrictions.ObjectivesTo map available evidence on the effects of digital interventions to mitigate social isolation and/or loneliness in older adults in all settings except hospital settings.Search methodsWe searched the following databases from inception to May 16, 2021, with no language restrictions. Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, Web of Science via Clarivate, ProQuest (all databases), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS) via ProQuest, EBSCO (all databases except CINAHL), Global Index Medicus, and Epistemonikos.Selection criteriaTitles and abstracts and full text of potentially eligible articles were independently screened in duplicate following the eligibility criteria.Data collection and analysisWe developed and pilot tested a data extraction code set in Eppi-Reviewer and data were individually extracted and coded based on an intervention-outcome framework which was also used to define the dimensions of the evidence and gap map.Main resultsWe included 200 articles (103 primary studies and 97 systematic reviews) that assessed the effects of digital interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness in older adults. Most of the systematic reviews (72%) were classified as critically low quality, only 2% as high quality and 25% were published since the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence is unevenly distributed with clusters predominantly in high-income countries and none in low-income countries. The most common interventions identified are digital interventions to enhance social interactions with family and friends and the community via videoconferencing and telephone calls. Digital interventions to enhance social support, particularly socially assistive robots, and virtual pets were also common. Most interventions focused on reducing loneliness and depression and improving quality of life of older adults. Major gaps were identified in community level outcomes and process indicators. No included studies or reviews assessed affordability or digital divide although the value of accessibility and barriers caused by digital divide were discussed in three primary studies and three reviews. Adverse effects were reported in only two studies and six reviews. No study or review included participants from the LGBTQIA2S+ community and only one study restricted participants to 80 years and older. Very few described how at-risk populations were recruited or conducted any equity analysis to assess differences in effects for populations experiencing inequities across PROGRESS-Plus categories.Authors' conclusionsThe restrictions placed on people during the pandemic have shone a spotlight onto social isolation and loneliness, particularly for older adults. This evidence and gap map shows available evidence on the effectiveness of digital interventions for reducing social isolation or loneliness in older adults. Although the evidence is relatively large and recent, it is unevenly distributed and there is need for more high-quality research. This map can guide researchers and funders to consider areas of major gaps as priorities for further research.