ISCA - Production of Evidence Syntheses for the Evidence Synthesis Programme

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Research Evidence Synthesis Programme plans to commission a number of research teams to provide high quality, timely and accurate evidence reviews to address priorities in health, public health and social care. AIMS: Evidence reviews will be used to drive improvements in outcomes for patients, service users, carers and the public and to guide improvements in the health and social care system. Topics will be developed through engagement with The Department of Health and Social Care and other key stakeholders across the four UK nations. We are an interdisciplinary group with extensive methodological expertise, a core interest in using diverse methods to produce research reviews that enable change in policies, services and behaviours, and a proven track record of effective collaboration and impactful publications. METHODS: Each review will be conducted using a five-stage process - Assembling the team: We will use our extensive networks to identify and invite people with personal, practice and policy experiences of the topic under review to join a project advisory group. Negotiating the scope: In consultation with the wider team, our advisory groups, and the review customer, we will begin by collaboratively developing and agreeing the research question(s), the extent of the work, the most appropriate methods and the timescale for completion. The aim of this stage will be to understand the review customer's needs and the quality, quantity and relevance of research available to address the proposed questions. Preparing the protocol: The protocol will describe the detailed methods we will use at each stage, and the timetable. Protocols will be registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) or other relevant database e.g. Open Science Framework. Review: We have experience of working quickly and flexibly with policy makers to conduct many different types of research reviews from literature mapping projects to full mixed-methods systematic reviews. We will use the ‘best practice’ principle of choosing the review methods that are most appropriate to the research question(s) and the time and evidence available. The core principles of rigour, transparency and independence will underpin all chosen methods. All reviews will be reported in accordance with relevant standards. Throughout the review process, we will communicate with the policy maker and the advisory group to ensure that the outputs remain useful to them. Sharing the findings: Working with our policy, practice and public advisors we will develop a communication plan for each review. This will identify i) key messages, ii) audiences for those messages, iii) relevant outlets for dissemination (e.g. organisations, popular internet sites and social media) and iv) the mode(s) of communication most suited to enabling action. Our aim will be to maximise the impact of review findings on policy and practice in all relevant sectors. COMMUNITY, PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT: We have experienced how review quality and relevance improves when working with patients and the public as partners. A public collaborator and our patient and public involvement and engagement lead will be part of the senior management group and involved in all reviews. We will provide training where necessary and all time contributions will be financially reimbursed.