The evolution of systematic evidence reviews: Past and future developments and their implications for policy analysis

IF 1.4 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Politics & Policy Pub Date : 2023-06-09 DOI:10.1111/polp.12532

Sebastian Lemire, Laura R. Peck, Allan Porowski

{"title":"The evolution of systematic evidence reviews: Past and future developments and their implications for policy analysis","authors":"Sebastian Lemire, Laura R. Peck, Allan Porowski","doi":"10.1111/polp.12532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>Evidence reviews are widely used to summarize findings from existing studies and, as such, are an important base for policy analysis. Over the past 50 years, three waves of evidence reviews have emerged: (1) the meta-analysis wave, (2) the mixed-methods synthesis wave, and (3) the core components wave. The present article first describes these waves and reflects on the benefits and limitations of each wave in the context of policy analysis. Informed by this historical account, the article then identifies and discusses three trends that are likely to influence future directions of evidence reviews: (1) using data science tools, (2) embedding an equity focus, and (3) translating research into practice. The concluding discussion connects these developments to public policy, identifying how evidence from systematic evidence reviews informs—or could better inform—policy decisions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Related Articles</h3>\n \n <p>Nunes Silva, Carlos. 2012. “Policy and Evidence in a Partisan Age: The Great Disconnect—By Paul Gary Wyckoff.” <i>Politics & Policy</i> 40(3): 541–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00363.x.</p>\n \n <p>Sinclair, Thomas A. P. 2006. “Previewing Policy Sciences: Multiple Lenses and Segmented Visions.” <i>Politics & Policy</i> 34(3): 481–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2006.00025.x.</p>\n \n <p>Smith-Walter, Aaron, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones, and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall. 2016. “Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in the United States.” <i>Politics & Policy</i> 44(6): 1053–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12187.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51679,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Policy","volume":"51 3","pages":"373-396"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12532","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Evidence reviews are widely used to summarize findings from existing studies and, as such, are an important base for policy analysis. Over the past 50 years, three waves of evidence reviews have emerged: (1) the meta-analysis wave, (2) the mixed-methods synthesis wave, and (3) the core components wave. The present article first describes these waves and reflects on the benefits and limitations of each wave in the context of policy analysis. Informed by this historical account, the article then identifies and discusses three trends that are likely to influence future directions of evidence reviews: (1) using data science tools, (2) embedding an equity focus, and (3) translating research into practice. The concluding discussion connects these developments to public policy, identifying how evidence from systematic evidence reviews informs—or could better inform—policy decisions.

Nunes Silva, Carlos. 2012. “Policy and Evidence in a Partisan Age: The Great Disconnect—By Paul Gary Wyckoff.” Politics & Policy 40(3): 541–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00363.x.

Sinclair, Thomas A. P. 2006. “Previewing Policy Sciences: Multiple Lenses and Segmented Visions.” Politics & Policy 34(3): 481–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2006.00025.x.

Smith-Walter, Aaron, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones, and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall. 2016. “Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in the United States.” Politics & Policy 44(6): 1053–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12187.

查看原文本刊更多论文

系统证据审查的演变：过去和未来的发展及其对政策分析的影响

证据审查被广泛用于总结现有研究的结果，因此是政策分析的重要基础。过去50年近年来，出现了三波证据综述：（1）荟萃分析波，（2）混合方法综合波，（3）核心成分波。本文首先描述了这些浪潮，并在政策分析的背景下反思了每一波浪潮的好处和局限性。根据这一历史叙述，文章确定并讨论了可能影响未来证据审查方向的三个趋势：（1）使用数据科学工具，（2）嵌入公平焦点，以及（3）将研究转化为实践。最后的讨论将这些发展与公共政策联系起来，确定系统证据审查的证据如何为政策决策提供信息，或者可以更好地为政策决策带来信息。相关文章努涅斯·席尔瓦，卡洛斯。2012年，《党派时代的政策与证据：巨大的脱节》，保罗·加里·怀科夫著；政策40（3）：541-43。https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00363.x.Sinclair，Thomas A.P.2006。“政策科学的前瞻：多重视角和分段视野”；政策34（3）：481–504。https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2006.00025.x.Smith Walter、Aaron、Holly L.Peterson、Michael D.Jones和Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall。2016年，《枪支故事：证据如何塑造美国的火器政策》，《政治与安全》；政策44（6）：1053-88。https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12187.

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Politics & Policy POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

2.50

自引率

23.10%

发文量