Achieving impact through the Evidence Review Hub

a tailored and collaborative approach

Samantha Barker1 & Jane Reid1
1. Institute for Safety, Compensation and Recovery Research, Monash University, Victoria, Australia

Background

Evidence Reviews (ERs) identify, assess and summarise the best available evidence
Benefits:- one of the most useable forms of evidence for people developing programs, policy or practice; and cost effective
way of using evidence in policy / practice
Challenges:- time-consuming; in the real-world policy setting responsiveness is critical, so this is a barrier to their use
ISCRR needed to develop a framework for evidence reviewing that would address this

Aim

To develop an evidence review framework that achieved a balance between high quality, relevance and timeliness, to enable
the use of best evidence in decision-making

Method

Informed by: review of other rapid review models and activities of similar research organisations; evaluation of past ISCRR
ERs; interviews with our industry and academic partners; incorporation of ISCRRs Research To Action model
Impact was evaluated by a separate ISCRR project

Results

The ER Hub: an integrated portfolio of value-add ER products that uses existing evidence to answer questions relevant to
compensation health. We work with researchers and policymakers to deliver our ER products
Responsive activity = snapshot, rapid and extensive review
Proactive activity = research alerts, briefs and horizon scanning
ERs differ according to: question/s; rigour required; timelines (urgency); and how the findings will be used

Impact

Review examples

Return on Investment

Crush Protection Devices

for Quad Bikes

Improved client health

outcomes

RTW & Motivational

Interviewing

Implantable Pain
Therapies for Chronic Pain

Informed local
knowledge & debate

Segmented Rehab post

brain injury

The (ER) report has been instrumental in the

continuing debate around Quad Bike Safety.
Agricultural Program Manager, WorkSafe

Learnings

Conclusion

Snapshot

Rapid

Extensive

Overview of the evidence

A comprehensive & rigorous assessment

Outputs: Summary &

10 page report (approx)
Timeframe: 4 12 weeks

Detailed assessment using expedited

methods
Outputs: Summary &
25 page report (approx)
Timeframe: 2 6 months

Advantages
Expeditious
Cost-effective
Encourages use of evidence

Advantages
Balances rigour with relevance
Thorough search & appraisal of evidence
Inform policy

Advantages
Exhaustive search & assessment
Suits complex topics
Inform policy

Limitations
Search not exhaustive
Increased risk of bias / error

Limitations
Time consuming
Bias still possible

Limitations
Time-consuming & resource intensive

Outputs: Summary & detailed report

Timeframe: 6 24 months

Successes: tailored ER products; clear processes & centralised activity; early engagement with partners
Challenges: balancing scientific rigor with timeliness; sourcing researchers on demand; changing priorities for partners; tailoring
ERs for complex topics

ISCRRs ER Hub provides a unique, collaborative approach to ERs, which have already demonstrated impact
We continue to refine methods to ensure a balance between rigour, relevance and timeliness