Evaluating the evidence in evidence-based policy and practice: Examples from systematic reviews of literature

被引:9
|
作者
See, Beng Huat [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Durham, Sch Educ, Leazes Rd, Durham DH1 1TA, England
关键词
Evidence-based policy and practice; assessing trustworthiness of research evidence; systematic reviews; research impact; scepticism; research quality;
D O I
10.1177/0034523717741915
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
With the push for evidence-informed policy and practice, schools and policy makers are now increasingly encouraged and supported to use and enagage with research evidence. This means that consumers of research will now need to be discerning in judging the quality of research evidence that will inform their decisions. This paper evaluates the quality of evidence behind some well-known education programmes using examples from previous reviews of over 5,000 studies on a range of topics. It shows that much of the evidence is weak, and fundamental flaws in research are not uncommon. This is a serious problem if teaching practices and important policy decisions are made based on such flawed evidence. Lives may be damaged and opportunities missed. The aim of this paper is to show how widespread this problem is and to suggest ways by which the quality of education research may be improved. For example, funders of research and research bodies need to insist on quality research and fund only those that meet the minimum quality criteria. Journal editors and reviewers need to be cognizant of fundamental flaws in research and reject such submissions. One way to do this is to encourage submission of the research design and research protocol prior to acceptance, so acceptance or rejection is based on the design and not on the outcomes. This helps prevent publication bias and biased reporting. Individual researchers can improve quality by making it their moral responsibility to be truthful and transparent.
引用
收藏
页码:37 / 61
页数:25
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Public policy and evidence-based practice
    Goldman, HH
    Azrin, ST
    PSYCHIATRIC CLINICS OF NORTH AMERICA, 2003, 26 (04) : 899 - +
  • [32] Evidence-based healthcare policy and practice
    Hurst, Keith
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE, 2013, 26 (05) : 567 - 577
  • [33] Commitment to evidence-based practice and policy
    Bodner, Donald R.
    JOURNAL OF SPINAL CORD MEDICINE, 2007, 30 (05): : 419 - 419
  • [34] Evidence-based Reviews: Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses
    Twa, Michael D.
    OPTOMETRY AND VISION SCIENCE, 2022, 99 (01) : 1 - 2
  • [35] The role of systematic literature reviews in clinical trial design: an evidence-based review
    Sjostedt, Philip
    Busch, Cindy
    Coolbaugh, Nicole A.
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2018, 34 : 39 - 40
  • [36] Role of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in evidence-based clinical practice
    McNamara, Erin R.
    Scales, Charles D., Jr.
    INDIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2011, 27 (04) : 520 - 524
  • [37] Patient participation in medication reviews is desirable but not evidence-based: a systematic literature review
    Willeboordse, Floor
    Hugtenburg, Jacqueline G.
    Schellevis, Francois G.
    Elders, Petra J. M.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY, 2014, 78 (06) : 1201 - 1216
  • [38] The Evidence-Based Practice Silent Enemy: Retracted Articles and Their Use in Systematic Reviews
    Herrera-Peco, Ivan
    Santillan-Garcia, Azucena
    Moran, Jose Maria
    Goodman-Casanova, Jessica Marian
    Cuesta-Lozano, Daniel
    HEALTHCARE, 2020, 8 (04)
  • [39] From evidence-based medicine to evidence-based practice: Is there enough evidence?
    Nasr, Ahmed
    MIDDLE EAST FERTILITY SOCIETY JOURNAL, 2010, 15 (04) : 294 - 295
  • [40] Practicing Healthcare Professionals' Evidence-Based Practice Competencies: An Overview of Systematic Reviews
    Saunders, Hannele
    Gallagher-Ford, Lynn
    Kvist, Tarja
    Vehvilainen-Julkunen, Katri
    WORLDVIEWS ON EVIDENCE-BASED NURSING, 2019, 16 (03) : 176 - 185