Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Demonstrating the value of evidence syntheses to inform funding organisations’ decision-making practices
View through CrossRef
The session aims to showcase the value of evidence syntheses in improving the practices of research funding organisations. Funders are facing growing demands to demonstrate impact, accountability and transparency in their practices. Evidence syntheses are comprehensive reviews that gather and analyse data from multiple studies on a specific topic, deepening our understanding and uncovering new insights. Driven by robust and rigorous evidence, evidence syntheses are essential mechanisms for implementing positive changes to research practices by providing funders, researchers, and institutions with the evidence needed to make well-informed decisions on policy and practice, noting that some may not have been extensively explored before.This session will draw on six evidence syntheses, covering diverse areas of interest to funders (e.g., realist review, scoping reviews). Using a case study approach, we will invite discussion on the value of using different types of evidence synthesis for different purposes and how the findings have relevance to stakeholders to inform decision-making. We hope that attendees will leave the session with a better understanding of the value of evidence syntheses to inform and enhance research practices. Six evidence syntheses that will be presented:
* [Peer review and decision-making in research funding](https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-022-00120-2)
* [Post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research](https://f1000research.com/articles/12-863)
* [Potential benefits and challenges of AI for research funding organisations](https://f1000research.com/articles/14-126)
* [Use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care research](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0291627)
* [Methods and approaches for evidencing research impact](https://ror-hub.org/study/3296/)
* [What constitutes a good research culture?](https://f1000research.com/articles/13-324)
Cassyni
Title: Demonstrating the value of evidence syntheses to inform funding organisations’ decision-making practices
Description:
The session aims to showcase the value of evidence syntheses in improving the practices of research funding organisations.
Funders are facing growing demands to demonstrate impact, accountability and transparency in their practices.
Evidence syntheses are comprehensive reviews that gather and analyse data from multiple studies on a specific topic, deepening our understanding and uncovering new insights.
Driven by robust and rigorous evidence, evidence syntheses are essential mechanisms for implementing positive changes to research practices by providing funders, researchers, and institutions with the evidence needed to make well-informed decisions on policy and practice, noting that some may not have been extensively explored before.
This session will draw on six evidence syntheses, covering diverse areas of interest to funders (e.
g.
, realist review, scoping reviews).
Using a case study approach, we will invite discussion on the value of using different types of evidence synthesis for different purposes and how the findings have relevance to stakeholders to inform decision-making.
We hope that attendees will leave the session with a better understanding of the value of evidence syntheses to inform and enhance research practices.
Six evidence syntheses that will be presented:
* [Peer review and decision-making in research funding](https://researchintegrityjournal.
biomedcentral.
com/articles/10.
1186/s41073-022-00120-2)
* [Post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research](https://f1000research.
com/articles/12-863)
* [Potential benefits and challenges of AI for research funding organisations](https://f1000research.
com/articles/14-126)
* [Use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care research](https://journals.
plos.
org/plosone/article?id=10.
1371/journal.
pone.
0291627)
* [Methods and approaches for evidencing research impact](https://ror-hub.
org/study/3296/)
* [What constitutes a good research culture?](https://f1000research.
com/articles/13-324).
Related Results
Autonomy on Trial
Autonomy on Trial
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
Abstract
This paper critically examines how US bioethics and health law conceptualize patient autonomy, contrasting the rights-based, individualist...
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most...
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical a...
9.F. Workshop: Rapid evidence synthesis to inform the national response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland
9.F. Workshop: Rapid evidence synthesis to inform the national response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Ireland
Abstract
The Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA) is an independent statutory authority in Ireland. Since March 202...
Role, function, and expectations of research funding committees: Perspectives from committee members
Role, function, and expectations of research funding committees: Perspectives from committee members
Research funding committees play an integral role in the research funding process, consisting of a range of skills, knowledge, and expertise (e.g., professional, and public contrib...
Role, function, and expectations of research funding committees: Perspectives from committee members
Role, function, and expectations of research funding committees: Perspectives from committee members
Research funding committees play an integral role in the research funding process, consisting of a range of skills, knowledge, and expertise (e.g., professional, and public contrib...
Role, function, and expectations of research funding committees: Perspectives from committee members
Role, function, and expectations of research funding committees: Perspectives from committee members
Research funding committees play an integral role in the research funding process, consisting of a range of skills, knowledge, and expertise (e.g., professional, and public contrib...
Exploring the use of ICTs in non-profit sector organisations: supporting the third act
Exploring the use of ICTs in non-profit sector organisations: supporting the third act
<p>Life after retirement from full-time work is known as the third act of an individual. In New Zealand the third act has become longer, resulting in an ageing population. An...

