Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLewin, Simon Arnold
dc.contributor.authorLanglois, Etienne V.
dc.contributor.authorTunçalp, Özge
dc.contributor.authorPortela, Anayda
dc.date.accessioned2025-02-04T11:40:24Z
dc.date.available2025-02-04T11:40:24Z
dc.date.created2024-01-16T09:28:05Z
dc.date.issued2024
dc.identifier.citationHealth Research Policy and Systems. 2024, 22.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1478-4505
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3176213
dc.description.abstractBackground: When deciding whether to implement an intervention, decision-makers typically have questions on feasibility and acceptability and on factors affecting implementation. Descriptions of programme implementation and of policies and systems are rich sources of information for these questions. However, this information is often not based on empirical data collected using explicit methods. To use the information in unconventional source materials in syntheses or other decision support products, we need methods of assessing their strengths and limitations. This paper describes the development and content of the Assessing unConventional Evidence (ACE) tool, a new tool to assess the strengths and limitations of these sources. Methods: We developed the ACE tool in four stages: first, we examined existing tools to identify potentially relevant assessment criteria. Second, we drew on these criteria and team discussions to create a first draft of the tool. Third, we obtained feedback on the draft from potential users and methodologists, and through piloting the tool in evidence syntheses. Finally, we used this feedback to iteratively refine the assessment criteria and to improve our guidance for undertaking the assessment. Results: The tool is made up of 11 criteria including the purpose and context of the source; the completeness of the information presented; and the extent to which evidence is provided to support the findings made. Users are asked to indicate whether each of the criteria have been addressed. On the basis of their judgements for each criterion, users then make an overall assessment of the limitations of the source, ranging from no or very minor concerns to serious concerns. These assessments can then facilitate appropriate use of the evidence in decision support products. Conclusions: Through focussing on unconventional source materials, the ACE tool fills an important gap in the range of tools for assessing the strengths and limitations of policy-relevant evidence and supporting evidence-informed decision-making.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherSpringer Natureen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleAssessing unConventional Evidence (ACE) tool: development and content of a tool to assess the strengths and limitations of ‘unconventional’ source materialsen_US
dc.title.alternativeAssessing unConventional Evidence (ACE) tool: development and content of a tool to assess the strengths and limitations of ‘unconventional’ source materialsen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.source.pagenumber1-14en_US
dc.source.volume22en_US
dc.source.journalHealth Research Policy and Systemsen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12961-023-01080-9
dc.identifier.cristin2227403
dc.source.articlenumber2en_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal