High-Stakes Systematic Reviews

Brian Goesling, Sarah Oberlander and Lisa Trivits

Evaluation Review, 2017, vol. 41, issue 1, 27-49

Abstract: Background: Systematic reviews help policy makers and practitioners make sense of research findings in a particular program, policy, or practice area by synthesizing evidence across multiple studies. However, the link between review findings and practical decision-making is rarely one-to-one. Policy makers and practitioners may use systematic review findings to help guide their decisions, but they may also rely on other information sources or personal judgment. Objectives: To describe a recent effort by the U.S. federal government to narrow the gap between review findings and practical decision-making. The Teen Pregnancy Prevention (TPP) Evidence Review was launched by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2009 as a systematic review of the TPP literature. HHS has used the review findings to determine eligibility for federal funding for TPP programs, marking one of the first attempts to directly link systematic review findings with federal funding decisions. Conclusions: The high stakes attached to the review findings required special considerations in designing and conducting the review. To provide a sound basis for federal funding decisions, the review had to meet accepted methodological standards. However, the review team also had to account for practical constraints of the funding legislation and needs of the federal agencies responsible for administering the grant programs. The review team also had to develop a transparent process for both releasing the review findings and updating them over time. Prospective review authors and sponsors must recognize both the strengths and limitations of this approach before applying it in other areas.

Keywords: teen pregnancy prevention; systematic review; federal grant funding (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X16664658 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:evarev:v:41:y:2017:i:1:p:27-49

DOI: 10.1177/0193841X16664658

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Evaluation Review
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().