Evidence and gap maps are a recent evidence synthesis product which have gathered a great deal of interest from researchers, commissioners and users of evidence. CEDIL has funded a range of evidence syntheses including maps. This session presents two CEDIL-funded maps and an overview of the use of maps, including examples from CEDIL-funded work.
|Howard White, CEDIL Research Director & CEO Campbell Collaboration|
|Suchi Malhotra, Research Associate, Campbell Collaboration||
|Carol Otike, Graduate Research Associate, Makerere University Kampala||
|Ashrita Saran, Acting Director, Campbell Collaboration South Asia||
Presentations will be made on the following maps:
The central role of maps in building the global evidence architecture, Howard White, CEDIL Research Director and CEO Campbell Collaboration
A country evaluation map for Uganda, Carol Otike, Africa Centre for Systematic Reviews and Knowledge Translation, Makerere University
The impact of transport interventions in low- and middle-income countries: an evidence and gap map. Suchi Malhotra, Campbell Collaboration South Asia.
View the complete webinar recording:
Uganda Gap Map: Click here to open the Gap Map
Guidance on producing a Campbell Evidence Gap Map: Click here to visit the article
Presentation by Howard White: Download PDF here
Presentation by Carol Otike: Download PDF here
Presentation by Suchi Malhotra: Download PDF here
Transcript of Q&A:
Could you please mention with which software you did create the map with the evidence-summary.
We code in EPPI Reviewer and then generate map using EPPI Mapper, which uses a JSON file exported from EPPI Reviewer
Are these maps peer reviewed? referring back to your pyramid slide, looks like that is a necessary requirement to ensure the quality of selcted studies does not only comply with these being peer reviewed
The maps are registered for publication in Campbell Systematic Reviews and so peer reviewed.
Inclusion criteria for studies in the map does NOT include publication status (Campbell explicitly disallows that), but we do do critical appraisal of included studies (haven’t yet for Uganda map)
Is there are a balance between EGMs providing evidence for users/practicioners and ‘Gaps’ for further research? 2a. Is there a hierarchy of fucntions 2b. is there a purposely in-built process to sequence gaps into production of evidence into furtehr identification of gaps to direct research and evidence to build on each other?
Whether a map finds evidence or gaps depends entirely on what research is out there. So for disability there is little evidence available in general . Transport has specific gaps as Suchi is saying. By contrast youth crime is well populated, so there are relatively less well populated areas (like gangs) but few absolutely empty areas.
Can you share what third party reconciliation detailed?
The coding of the two coders is compared and reconciled by a third party (usually senior researcher). EPPI Reviewer has the functionality to make this task very manageable
In your experience, is there a demand for these maps from national decision makers or is there some socializing of the tool to be done?
Generally you need to work on the demand side; see discussion here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0253-6
The Uganda case is very interesting for us in Senegal. Can Carol tell us how this Gap Map has been used. And how far could Uganda involve sector specialist to make sense of the findings? And was it really worth going all the way back to 2000?