{"title":"The production and utility of evidence synthesis during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: perspectives of evidence synthesis producers.","authors":"Tricia Corrin, Paul Cairney, Eric B Kennedy","doi":"10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000034","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>COVID-19 accentuated an evergreen dilemma in evidence-informed policy making: the imperative to synthesise the best available evidence with limited time to produce high quality synthesis. The pandemic prompted the adaptation of evidence synthesis practices to match the urgency of the crisis, and heightened demand by policy makers, while maintaining a focus on quality. This study documents the response to these challenges from the perspectives of those who produced evidence syntheses in Canada.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative phenomenological study was conducted between October 2022 and January 2023. Data collection included interviews with 22 participants within 19 organisations across seven provinces. A thematic analysis was performed and reported narratively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Evidence synthesis producers in Canada adapted in response to the demands of different types of requests during the pandemic. Participants described several key challenges in responding to end-users, in which a lack of knowledge of evidence synthesis processes and products prompted difficult questions and unrealistic expectations. They responded to the needs of evidence synthesis requestors by creating custom syntheses, utilising rapid review methodologies, emphasising limitations and incorporating recommendations into syntheses.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>The evidence synthesis field was able to adapt to pandemic challenges in valuable ways. Still, this experience accentuates disconnects between producers and users, including differing views on the purpose, methods, limitations and implementation of synthesis findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"108-128"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648Y2024D000000034","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: COVID-19 accentuated an evergreen dilemma in evidence-informed policy making: the imperative to synthesise the best available evidence with limited time to produce high quality synthesis. The pandemic prompted the adaptation of evidence synthesis practices to match the urgency of the crisis, and heightened demand by policy makers, while maintaining a focus on quality. This study documents the response to these challenges from the perspectives of those who produced evidence syntheses in Canada.
Methods: A qualitative phenomenological study was conducted between October 2022 and January 2023. Data collection included interviews with 22 participants within 19 organisations across seven provinces. A thematic analysis was performed and reported narratively.
Results: Evidence synthesis producers in Canada adapted in response to the demands of different types of requests during the pandemic. Participants described several key challenges in responding to end-users, in which a lack of knowledge of evidence synthesis processes and products prompted difficult questions and unrealistic expectations. They responded to the needs of evidence synthesis requestors by creating custom syntheses, utilising rapid review methodologies, emphasising limitations and incorporating recommendations into syntheses.
Discussion and conclusion: The evidence synthesis field was able to adapt to pandemic challenges in valuable ways. Still, this experience accentuates disconnects between producers and users, including differing views on the purpose, methods, limitations and implementation of synthesis findings.