evidence synthesis networks: a conversation

Posted on by evidencesynthesisnetwork

Evidence synthesis networks in the North West of England are collaborating to explore how individuals and networks link to support capacity development in evidence synthesis, guideline development and health technology assessment disciplines.

We hosted an open conversation on mentimeter. People working in any field that uses evidence synthesis were invited to share their experiences. We used Mentimeter to collect and share comments (by entering a code at menti.com). As part of the ‘open conversation’ respondents could see what others posted in real-time – including their responses.

The open conversation helped stimulate and extend discussion at our G-I-N workshop on 12 September 2019, in Manchester, UK. We were joined by around 15 colleagues attending G-I-N.

We share a summary of these activities in this post, to help continue this conversation…

Please see our overview; screenshots and sticky notes and summary of discussions – below.

Slide4

Background

We established the ‘North West Evidence Synthesis Network’ (NWESN) to bring together guideline developers, health researchers and policy makers from across our region in order to share knowledge and expertise and raise awareness of methodological developments. Several other UK networks have been initiated including the ‘Liverpool Evidence Synthesis Network’ (LivEN). Feedback from members has been positive with both personal and institutional benefits.

Other networks we engage with include:

  • Health Research Methodology and Implementation (HeRMI)
  • Bangor Evidence Synthesis Hub (BESH)
  • Peninsula Systematic Review discussion group (PenSR)

Implications for guideline developers

Our presentation at the Global Evidence Summit 2017 demonstrated the benefits of membership of the NWESN. Implications for guideline developers included general education and updating on new methods; a key benefit is the opportunity to share skills, information and support across researchers and institutions.

We developed our workshop at G-I-N 2018  to raise awareness of the benefits of networks and what they can offer methodologists and guideline developers. We hope to encourage more people to connect with and establish methodological networks.

Open conversation – before the workshop

BEFORE the G-I-N workshop – questions on challenges to developing capacity, networks engaged with and types of engagement offered by these networks.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The workshop

FROM the G-I-N workshop – questions on top features of networks, assessing needs, the shape of an ideal network

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

BELOW are, first, a summary of discussion points noted at our G-I-N workshop, then second, a list of responses to our open conversation questions. We have combined comments before and from the workshop.

Experiences and suggestions for a good network

  • Active participation – members should actively participate in the network
  • Communication and balance of communication are important i.e. not too often but as needs prompt
  • openness – network should be open to any committed individuals with a common aim/purpose
  • Opportunity for face-to-face meetings is important

Continuity and sustainability of networks

  • Administrative support
  • Financial support
  • Organisational memory is important for continuity – how is this achieved?
  • Passion needed to keep it going, and they should have clear roles and should to take personal responsibility
  • Piggyback network activity onto other events and activities to support sustainability
  • Problem-solving is an important aspect in order to keep members engaged with the network
  • Value – network needs to demonstrate this

What are barriers to a good network?

  • Focus of network not always clear
  • Time pressures as participation (organisers and members) is often over and above day job
  • Transient community of network members as they move onto different jobs/roles

What are your 3 main challenges in capacity development?

Please share your 3 main challenges in developing & maintaining knowledge & skills to develop guidelines or HTA?

  • Ability to commit
  • Access to affordable training
  • Access to up-to-date developments in the field.
  • Baseline skills in biostats and clinical epidemiology needed prior to evidence synthesis and guidelines training
  • Complexity of need, preferences and circumstances
  • Curiosity
  • Developing advanced skills
  • Developing and delivering regular updates. Training ‘once’ is not enough.
  • Fast pace of methodological development Staff overworked with the day job Time for development
  • Finding adequate personnel with the right skills and interest
  • Finding appropriate courses/material.
  • Finding funding to support it
  • Finding people willing to cooperate, time, openness to the ideas of others
  • Get people to share, avoid duplication
  • Getting clinical experts to truly understand the evidence
  • Having opportunities to put new methodologies into practice
  • Having the time to read, understand, and then share with colleagues
  • How to involve patients/public, keeping up with new developments globally
  • Incorporating new knowledge and into existing training programmes or replacing outdated interventions with new ones.
  • Insufficient time allocated to training.
  • Keeping up
  • Keeping up to date with new methodologies in the literature
  • Lack of manpower
  • Lack of methodology knowledge time management problem no network*
  • Lack of time
  • Lack of time dedicated time to conduct, to keep up to date with new methods,
  • Lacking ‘real world’ examples of new methodologies in practice
  • Need to understand that feasibility and acceptability are just as important as effectiveness.
  • New methods borrow from other disciplines and some colleagues don’t like that, esp the qual/quant divide… So conversation and progress is limited
  • No resource available/known of that lists published research on SR methodologies, not just for HTAs in one place –
  • Not all colleagues are into evidence synthesis – where’s the conversation?
  • Opportunity to discuss emerging techniques and hear how they’ve worked for others.
  • Particularly interested in searching – would like to develop.
  • Providing clear explanations of theoretical foundations, mechanisms of action and expected outcomes.
  • Providing post-training follow-up to ensure knowledge and skills are appropriately understood and consistently applied.
  • Putting it into practice – is there a project, willing colleagues etc who will adopt new or stick with old tried and tested?
  • Resistance to change
  • Staff shortages, conflicting priorities.
  • Time Colleagues with similar interests to discuss Time
  • Time for training, funding for training, deadlines
  • Time to identify/read methodological papers.
  • Time to read and apply new methodologies.
  • Time** (“Time. Time. Time”)
  • Training guideline group members who are involved in guideline development.
  • Understanding the necessity
  • Users want the guideline RIGHT NOW, not in 2 years
  • Willingness
  • Willingness to participate in the process

30 respondents, comments separated out to form distinct concepts, edited for spelling/ punctuation, **shared by many respondents

Which networks do you engage with?

Please list networks that you engage with to support you to develop & maintain knowledge & skills for guideline or HTA development

28 respondents, *shared by more than 1 respondent, **shared by many respondents.

What types of engagement do your networks offer? 

Such as face-to-face seminars, blogs, e-mail, research collaboration, mentorship, methods advice, webinars…

  • All of the above, maybe almost too many options to engage?
  • Blogs**
  • Brainstorming
  • Closed workshops but infrequently
  • Conferences
  • Discussion groups
  • Email discussion groups
  • E-mail**
  • Face-to-face meeting
  • Face-to-face seminars
  • Face-to-face training
  • Guidance materials
  • Informal support
  • Mentorship*
  • Methods advice*
  • None
  • NW-ESN good for networking and presentations but doesn’t do ‘practical training’. Maybe something to look into?
  • Online forum
  • Online resource sharing/ online resources*
  • Research collaboration**
  • Seminars*
  • Summer schools
  • Webinars/ online seminars**
  • Workshops

28 respondents, *shared by more than 1 respondent, **shared by many respondents.

Thank you for engaging with this post. Do get in touch if you want to know more.

We are grateful to those contributing to the session, which attracted delegates from American Physical Therapy Association, Belgian Red Cross, Campbell Collaboration, Cochrane Collaboration, Cochrane Africa, Danish Health Authority, European Academy of Neurology, European Respiratory Society, Healthcare Improvement Scotland, HMV Brazil, SATEC Ukraine, The State Expert Center of Ministry of Health Ukraine.

Leave a comment

Published by evidencesynthesisnetwork