2013年-世界发展银行全球_Evidence_Gap_Maps___A_Tool_for_Promoting_Evidence-Informed_Policy_and_Prioritizing_Future_Research_34页_594kb

Summary of Evidence Gap Maps

Core Content

Evidence Gap Maps (EGMs) are a tool designed to support evidence-informed policy making and guide future research priorities. They provide a visual overview of existing systematic reviews and impact evaluations, mapping interventions and outcomes in specific sectors or subsectors. The primary aim of EGMs is to help policy makers and practitioners quickly assess the quality and availability of evidence, while also identifying areas where further research is needed.

Main Objectives

1. Facilitate informed decision making: By presenting a clear and accessible overview of existing evidence, EGMs enable users to make evidence-based decisions in international development.
2. Prioritize future research: EGMs highlight key evidence gaps, guiding the allocation of limited research resources to areas where they can have the greatest impact.

Key Features

• Visual framework: EGMs use a structured intervention-outcome framework to organize and display evidence, typically covering intermediate to final outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
• Comprehensive coverage: They include both systematic reviews and primary studies, depending on the purpose of the map.
• Critical appraisal: The evidence included in EGMs is critically appraised for quality and relevance.
• User-friendly summaries: Summaries of included studies are made accessible to non-technical audiences.
• Broad thematic scope: EGMs focus on entire sectors or subsectors (e.g., maternal health, HIV/AIDS, agriculture) rather than specific research questions.

Comparison with Other Evidence Mapping Approaches

Methodology	Broad Thematic Focus	Included Evidence	Systematic Search	Critical Appraisal	Analysis	Visualization	Access to Summaries
3ie Gap Map	Yes	Systematic reviews and impact evaluations	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Evidence Map (GEM, Headspace)	Yes	Systematic reviews, impact evaluations, other	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes
Scoping Study	Yes	Can do	May be limited	No	Yes	No	No
Systematic Map	Yes	Can do	Yes	Limited	Yes	No	No
Rapid Evidence Assessment	No	Can do	Yes (but may be limited)	Limited	Yes	No	No
Systematic Reviews	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Can do
Overviews of Systematic Reviews	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No
Evidence-Based Policing Matrix	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes

Notes:

• EGMs are similar to the Evidence-Based Policing Matrix in their use of systematic search and critical appraisal.
• They differ from other methods in their focus on a broad sectoral scope and their use of a policy-relevant framework for visualization.
• EGMs are not intended to provide direct recommendations but to inform policy development and research commissioning.

What EGMs Do Not Do

• Do not answer specific research questions: EGMs provide a broad overview rather than focusing on a single question.
• Do not include predictive factors or implementation details: They are limited to studies assessing intervention effectiveness.
• Do not provide detailed contextual background: The focus is on the evidence itself rather than the context in which it was generated.
• Do not synthesize findings: They do not combine results from included studies but rather present them in a structured format.
• Do not provide policy recommendations: They serve as a resource rather than a recommendation tool.

Methodology Overview

1. Developing Scope

• A framework is created to represent all relevant interventions and outcomes in a sector or subsector.
• The framework is based on policy documents, existing frameworks, and literature reviews.
• Stakeholder consultation is essential to ensure the framework is relevant and acceptable.

2. Setting Study Inclusion Criteria

• EGMs primarily focus on intervention effectiveness, including impact evaluations and systematic reviews.
• Criteria depend on the scope of the sector and the intended use of the map.
• For policy-focused maps, the search must be comprehensive and systematic.

3. Searching for Relevant Studies and Assessing Inclusion

• A systematic search strategy is developed, often combining general and subject-specific databases.
• Techniques such as snowballing, citation tracking, and use of list serves can enhance the search process.
• Reference management software is used to organize and assess the retrieved studies.

Conclusion

Evidence Gap Maps are a valuable resource for international development, offering a structured, accessible, and visual way to understand the evidence base in key sectors. They support both current policy and future research by highlighting gaps and facilitating informed decision making. The methodology is flexible and can be adapted based on the purpose of the map, whether it is to guide funding or inform policy.