最佳证据工具包:关于预防暴力侵害妇女和女童行为干预措施的案例研究。

IF 6.3 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Michelle Richardson, Theo Lorenc, Katy Sutcliffe, Amanda Sowden, James Thomas
{"title":"最佳证据工具包:关于预防暴力侵害妇女和女童行为干预措施的案例研究。","authors":"Michelle Richardson, Theo Lorenc, Katy Sutcliffe, Amanda Sowden, James Thomas","doi":"10.1186/s13643-025-02798-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Research teams report challenges in conducting overviews and many of these relate to the synthesis of outcome data from multiple reviews that lead to unclear evidence. This limits research from being used by policymakers and other review users who need accessible robust evidence. In this commentary, we present a case study on creating a toolkit of interventions for preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG). This toolkit is underpinned by systematic methods and a priori criteria that identify a single best up-to-date systematic review of each subtopic. The best evidence toolkit approach does not require the synthesis of multiple reviews and produces clear, standardised evidence across subtopics efficiently. This approach offers a pragmatic alternative to overviews when presenting a broad spectrum of intervention approaches, populations or outcomes. This approach may be particularly beneficial when the primary aim is to communicate with policymakers.</p>","PeriodicalId":22162,"journal":{"name":"Systematic Reviews","volume":"14 1","pages":"112"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12082913/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Best evidence toolkits: a case study on interventions for preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG).\",\"authors\":\"Michelle Richardson, Theo Lorenc, Katy Sutcliffe, Amanda Sowden, James Thomas\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13643-025-02798-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Research teams report challenges in conducting overviews and many of these relate to the synthesis of outcome data from multiple reviews that lead to unclear evidence. This limits research from being used by policymakers and other review users who need accessible robust evidence. In this commentary, we present a case study on creating a toolkit of interventions for preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG). This toolkit is underpinned by systematic methods and a priori criteria that identify a single best up-to-date systematic review of each subtopic. The best evidence toolkit approach does not require the synthesis of multiple reviews and produces clear, standardised evidence across subtopics efficiently. This approach offers a pragmatic alternative to overviews when presenting a broad spectrum of intervention approaches, populations or outcomes. This approach may be particularly beneficial when the primary aim is to communicate with policymakers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"112\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12082913/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02798-z\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-025-02798-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究小组报告了在进行概述方面的挑战,其中许多挑战与综合来自多次审查的结果数据有关,导致证据不明确。这限制了政策制定者和其他需要可获得的有力证据的审查用户使用研究。在本评论中,我们介绍了一个关于创建预防暴力侵害妇女和女童行为干预工具包的案例研究。该工具包以系统方法和先验标准为基础,确定每个子主题的单一最佳最新系统审查。最佳证据工具包方法不需要综合多个审查,并有效地产生跨子主题的明确、标准化证据。在提出广泛的干预方法、人群或结果时,这种方法提供了一种实用的替代方法。当主要目的是与决策者沟通时,这种方法可能特别有益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Best evidence toolkits: a case study on interventions for preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG).

Research teams report challenges in conducting overviews and many of these relate to the synthesis of outcome data from multiple reviews that lead to unclear evidence. This limits research from being used by policymakers and other review users who need accessible robust evidence. In this commentary, we present a case study on creating a toolkit of interventions for preventing violence against women and girls (VAWG). This toolkit is underpinned by systematic methods and a priori criteria that identify a single best up-to-date systematic review of each subtopic. The best evidence toolkit approach does not require the synthesis of multiple reviews and produces clear, standardised evidence across subtopics efficiently. This approach offers a pragmatic alternative to overviews when presenting a broad spectrum of intervention approaches, populations or outcomes. This approach may be particularly beneficial when the primary aim is to communicate with policymakers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Systematic Reviews
Systematic Reviews Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
241
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊介绍: Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal publishes high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modelling. At this time Systematic Reviews does not accept reviews of in vitro studies. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信