Campbell Systematic Reviews最新文献

{"title":"Reliability and Validity of Risk Assessment Tools for Violent Extremism: A Systematic Review","authors":"Sébastien Brouillette-Alarie, Ghayda Hassan, Wynnpaul Varela, Emmanuel Danis, Sarah Ousman, Pablo Madriaza, Inga Lisa Pauls, Deniz Kilinc, David Pickup, Robert Pelzer, Eugene Borokhovski, the CPN-PREV team","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70080","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70080","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 <p>Assessment of the risk of engaging in a violent radicalization/extremism trajectory has evolved quickly in the last 10 years. Guided by what has been achieved in psychology and criminology, scholars from the field of preventing violent extremism (PVE) have tried to import key lessons from violence risk assessment and management, while bearing in mind the idiosyncrasies of their particular field. However, risk tools that have been developed in the PVE space are relatively recent, and questions remain as to their level of psychometric validation. Namely, do these tools consistently and accurately assess risk of violent extremist acting out? To answer this question, we systematically reviewed evidence on the reliability and validity of violent extremism risk tools. The main objective of this review was to gather, critically appraise, and synthesize evidence regarding the appropriateness and utility of such tools, as validated with specific populations and contexts. Searches covered studies published up to December 31, 2021. They were performed in English and German across 17 databases, 45 repositories, Google, other literature reviews on violent extremism risk assessment, and references of included studies. Studies in all languages were eligible for inclusion in the review. We included studies with primary data resulting from the quantitative examination of the reliability and validity of tools used to assess the risk of violent extremism. Only tools usable by practitioners and intended to assess an individual's risk were eligible. We did not impose any restrictions on study design, type, method, or population. We followed standard methodological procedures outlined by the Campbell Collaboration for data extraction and analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the COSMIN checklist, and data were synthesized through meta-analysis when possible. Otherwise, narrative synthesis was used to aggregate the results. Among the 10,859 records found, 19 manuscripts comprising 20 eligible studies were included in the review. These studies focused on the Terrorist Radicalization Assessment Protocol (TRAP-18), the Extremism Risk Guidance Factors (ERG22+), the Multi-Level Guidelines (MLG-V2), the Identifying Vulnerable People guidance (IVP guidance), and the Violent Extremism Risk Assessment (VERA)—all structured professional judgment tools—as well as <i>Der Screener—Islamismus</i>, an actuarial scale. Studies mostly involved adult male participants susceptible to violent extremism (<i>N</i> = 1106; <i>M</i> = 58.21; SD = 55.14). The types of extremist ideologies endorsed by participants varied, and the same was true for ethnicity and country/continent of provenance. Encouraging results were found concerning the inter-rater agreement of scales in research contexts (kappas between 0.76 and 0.93), but one of the two studies that examined it in a field setting obtained disap","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1,"publicationDate":"2025-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70080","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145750671","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Extent of the Use of GRADE in Campbell Systematic Reviews: A Systematic Survey","authors":"Zhenjie Lian,&nbsp;Rui Wang,&nbsp;Xuping Song,&nbsp;Yunze Han,&nbsp;Qiyin Luo,&nbsp;Jing Tang,&nbsp;Xinye Guo,&nbsp;Yan Ma,&nbsp;Yue Hu,&nbsp;Xufei Luo,&nbsp;Yaolong Chen,&nbsp;Kehu Yang,&nbsp;Howard White,&nbsp;Vivian Welch","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70082","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70082","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To conduct a systematic survey on the extent of the use of the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) and other evidence grading systems in Campbell systematic reviews (SRs).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Study Design and Settings</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Campbell SRs published before January 1st, 2024, that used evidence grading systems were included. General characteristics and details of a summary of findings (SoF) table and an evidence profile (EP) were independently extracted by two investigators.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Among 234 SRs retrieved, 46 (19.66%) used evidence grading systems, all of which were GRADE. One used GRADE erroneously to rate the quality of individual studies rather than the body of evidence. The 45 SRs used GRADE to assess the certainty of a body of evidence and included 858 outcomes. Of them, the certainty in evidence for 32 were rated as high (3.73%), 170 were moderate (19.81%), 291 were low (33.92%), and 365 were very low (42.54%). Among the 1860 instances of downgrading and upgrading, the certainty in evidence was mostly downgraded for risk of bias (ROB) (1026, 55.16%) and imprecision (408, 21.94%). The large magnitude of effect (14, 0.75%) and plausible confounding (10, 0.54%) were the main upgraded factors. The proportions for higher certainty in evidence (including high and moderate) were larger in the international development (9.59%) and social welfare (7.55%) groups than in the other groups (1.37%).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Most Campbell SRs do not assess the GRADE certainty in evidence. Where evidence is evaluated, the quality of that evidence is mainly low or very low, and this is most commonly due to serious ROB or imprecision.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1,"publicationDate":"2025-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70082","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145750672","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Enhancing Policy Impact Through Knowledge Translation: The Role of Innovative Evidence Products","authors":"Ashima Mohan,&nbsp;Howard White","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70084","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70084","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;The objective of applied social science research is to inform policy and practice to improve societal outcomes (White and Welch &lt;span&gt;2022&lt;/span&gt;). However, in the words of the head of the World Bank's Development Impact Group, DIME, ‘Dissemination is dead’.&lt;sup&gt;1&lt;/sup&gt; That is, traditional dissemination pathways—academic publications, conference presentations, and even policy briefs—are insufficient for achieving meaningful policy uptake. No matter how rigorous or relevant, research alone does not usually translate into policy impact without deliberate, structured mechanisms to bridge the gap between evidence generation and decision-making. The recognition of this fact has resulted in the growth of knowledge translation as what has been called the fourth wave of the evidence revolution (White &lt;span&gt;2019&lt;/span&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Knowledge translation is ‘the exchange, synthesis, and effective communication of reliable and relevant research results. The focus is on promoting interaction among the producers and users of research, removing the barriers to research use, and tailoring information to different target audiences so that effective interventions are used more widely’ (World Health Organization &lt;span&gt;2004&lt;/span&gt;). There are various approaches to knowledge brokering. These include direct interaction between researchers and decision-makers in interpreting and using the findings, in-house knowledge brokers, creating a ‘helpdesk’ function, or using an independent rapid review service.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The approach we discuss here is online evidence-based decision-making products (EBDMPs), which summarize research findings in accessible forms without requiring the user to read the underlying research papers or reports. The traditional policy brief is an example of an EBDMP. However, a policy brief alone is usually insufficient to engage decision-makers.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Policy briefs have been the cornerstone of knowledge translation for many years. In 2015, the Campbell Collaboration began to publish Plain Language Summaries (PLSs) of new reviews, as well as producing PLSs for most existing reviews.&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt; The co-chair of the Crime and Justice group described these PLS as ‘gold dust’.&lt;sup&gt;3&lt;/sup&gt; Whilst policy briefs alone will have a limited impact on decision-makers, the value placed by the Campbell Crime and Justice co-chair on the PLS was because he used them as part of his engagement with high-level decision-makers, not as a standalone product.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The shortcomings of policy briefs include that (i) they are uni-directional communication of researchers telling decision-makers what to do, rather than engaging them as stakeholders in the research process; (ii) policy briefs of single studies may have limited discussion of context and transferability of study findings, and (iii) lack comparisons to alternative approaches. In addition, there is often a focus on ‘what works’, but with insufficient information on intervention design and implementation to be of use.&lt;/p","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70084","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145686294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Campbell Title Registrations to Date—September 2025, and Discontinued Protocols","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70085","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Details of new titles for systematic reviews or evidence and gap maps that have been accepted by the Editor of a Campbell Coordinating Group are published in each issue of the journal. If you would like to receive a copy of the approved title registration form, please send an email to the Managing Editor of the relevant Coordinating Group.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A list of discontinued protocols appears below these new titles. If you are interested to continue a project, please get in touch with the Managing Editor of the relevant Coordinating Group or email &lt;span&gt;[email protected]&lt;/span&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Ageing&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Mapping Financial Literacy Programs for the Ageing Population: Protocol for a Scoping Review populations&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Carina Sofia Teixeira Fernandes, Isabel Silva, Inês Gomes&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;2 September 2025&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Peer-supported intervention to improve diabetes related quality of life and diabetes management in the elderly with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Segufta Dilshad, Cheong Theng, Sazlina Ghazali, Lim Ying&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;29 September 2025&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Business and Management&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Does Nonfinancial Information Disclosure Predict Stock Market Outcomes?–A systematic review&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Hongli Shang, Yi Sheng, Guoling Qiang, Wenjie Zhou, Yufeng Wen, Yongjie Feng, Weijie Lin&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;4 November 2025&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Effects of Organizational Transparency Interventions on Trust in AI-Assisted Decision-Making and Human Decision-Makers: A Systematic Review of Enabling Mechanisms&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Rachel Hor, Michael Zhang&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;10 November 2025&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Climate Solutions&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Climate Shocks and Intimate Partner Violence in Low- and Lower Middle-Income Countries: A Protocol for a Scoping Review&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Kelly Murray, Savannah Badt, Shalean Collins Kapur, Stella Neema, Anita Raj, Martha Silva, Monica Swahn, Anastasia Gage&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;24 October 2025&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Coastal land reclamation and climate risk: an evidence and gap map&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Jan Petzold, Charlotta Mirbach, Robert Nicholls&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;27 October 2025&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Education&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Interventions to Mitigate Gender Bias in Healthcare Education and Clinical Training: A Scoping Review&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Laura Rodríguez-González, Margarita Bernales&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;6 October 2025&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;International Development&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tax free pad versus taxed pad policy for menstrual hygiene management globally: A systematic Review&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Ndum Ayeah, Nian Yuh, Damaris Ntam, Constance Ayongho, Ernest Wung, Patrick Mbah&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;22 September 2025&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Knowledge Translation and Implementation&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) in health settings: Protocol for a mixed methods systematic review&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Miquel Colom-Rosselló, Manuela Abbate, Laura Capitan-Moyano, Elena Pastor-Ramon, Maria Fernandez, Aina Yañez, Miquel Bennasar-Veny&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;18 September 2025&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;How do General Practitioners share knowledge and seek advice regarding paediatric care? Mixed methods systematic review&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Tina Vickery, Georgia Fisher, Lisa Pagano, Darran Foo, J","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1,"publicationDate":"2025-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70085","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145695112","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Protocol: Understanding the Content, Context, and Impact of Far-Right Extremist Propaganda Disseminated Online: A Systematic Review","authors":"Mia Doolan,&nbsp;Katie Cox,&nbsp;Kiran M. Sarma","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70076","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70076","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is the protocol for a Campbell Systematic Review. This review will address two aims: (1) A qualitative synthesis of literature on the composition of online far right propaganda, and (2) A quantitative synthesis of literature examining the impact of exposure to online far-right propaganda on audiences. These syntheses will be guided by the following specific objectives: (i) What is the content (i.e. themes) of online far-right propaganda, and how does this differ across ideological subgroups? (ii) What is the structure of online far-right propaganda, and how does this differ across ideological subgroups? (iii) What is the context of these messages (i.e., where, when and by whom were they posted?) (iv) What impact does exposure to online far-right propaganda have on audiences with reference to the radicalisation of opinion and/or action?</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1,"publicationDate":"2025-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70076","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145530060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Protocol: The Effects of Communication Strategies on Upcycled Food Acceptance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Shuai Ma,&nbsp;Zhihong Xu,&nbsp;Peng Lu,&nbsp;Jean Parrella,&nbsp;Ashlynn Kogut","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70075","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. Our review will exclusively emphasize quantitative evidence from experimental studies, identifying the important factors and providing comprehensive and in-depth recommendations, with a primary focus on identifying the effective communication and marketing strategies that have been evaluated. The findings of the study focusing on consumers' acceptance will provide valuable insight for policymakers to combat the food waste issue. The research questions are as follows: RQ1: What are the key factors influencing consumer acceptance in experimental studies on upcycled foods? RQ2: What communication and marketing strategies have been used to increase consumer acceptance in experimental studies on upcycled foods?</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1,"publicationDate":"2025-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70075","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145521980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Position Statement on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Use in Evidence Synthesis Across Cochrane, the Campbell Collaboration, JBI, and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2025","authors":"Ella Flemyng,&nbsp;Anna Noel-Storr,&nbsp;Biljana Macura,&nbsp;Gerald Gartlehner,&nbsp;James Thomas,&nbsp;Joerg J. Meerpohl,&nbsp;Zoe Jordan,&nbsp;Jan Minx,&nbsp;Angelika Eisele-Metzger,&nbsp;Candyce Hamel,&nbsp;Paweł Jemioło,&nbsp;Kylie Porritt,&nbsp;Matthew Grainger","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70074","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70074","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Evidence syntheses, including systematic reviews, are a type of research that uses systematic, replicable methods to evaluate all available evidence on a specific question. They are built on the principles of research integrity, including rigor, transparency, and reproducibility. There is wide recognition that artificial intelligence (AI) and automation have the potential to transform the way we produce evidence syntheses, making the process significantly more efficient. However, this technology is potentially disruptive, characterized by opaque decision-making and black-box predictions, susceptible to overfitting, potentially embedded with algorithmic biases, and at risk of fabricated outputs and hallucinations. To safeguard evidence synthesis as the cornerstone of trusted, evidence-informed decision making, Cochrane, the Campbell Collaboration, JBI and the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE), have come together to collaborate on a responsible and pragmatic approach to AI use in evidence synthesis.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;By AI, we mean different types of automation, as described within the Responsible use of AI in evidence SynthEsis recommendations (RAISE) (Thomas et al. &lt;span&gt;2025a&lt;/span&gt;), specifically, “advanced technologies that enable machines to do highly complex tasks effectively – which would require intelligence if a person were to perform them.” This ranges from general automation applications, such as rule-based or trained machine learning algorithms, to more recent large language models and generative AI approaches.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Incorporating AI in evidence synthesis comes with challenges as well as opportunities. While it is clear we need to make better use of AI for evidence synthesis to become more timely, affordable, and sustainable, we must also acknowledge the environmental and social costs associated with some forms of AI, particularly large-scale language models. There are risks that misuse could erode methodological standards by exacerbating existing biases and reducing reliability (Hanna et al. &lt;span&gt;2025&lt;/span&gt;; Siemens et al. &lt;span&gt;2025&lt;/span&gt;). These concerns are particularly relevant as current AI developments are often driven by commercial interests and, as such, are often opaque regarding limitations and lacking appropriate validation and evaluation. Overall, this undermines the reliability and replicability of AI-driven outputs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;To this end, Cochrane, the Campbell Collaboration, JBI, and the CEE have come together to form a joint AI Methods Group (AI Methods Group &lt;span&gt;2025&lt;/span&gt;). The group officially supports the aims of RAISE (Thomas et al. &lt;span&gt;2025a&lt;/span&gt;), which states that we need to work together to ensure AI does not compromise the principles of research integrity on which evidence synthesis was built. RAISE offers tailored recommendations for roles across the evidence synthesis ecosystem, from evidence synthesists to methodologists, from AI development teams to organizations or publishers involved in eviden","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1,"publicationDate":"2025-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12603384/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145507375","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Behavioral, Information, and Monetary Interventions to Reduce Energy Consumption in Households: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis","authors":"Tarun M. Khanna,&nbsp;Diana Danilenko,&nbsp;Qianyi Wang,&nbsp;Luke A. Smith,&nbsp;Bhumika T. V.,&nbsp;Aditya Narayan Rai,&nbsp;Jorge Sánchez Canales,&nbsp;Tim Repke,&nbsp;Max Callaghan,&nbsp;Mark Andor,&nbsp;Julian H. Elliott,&nbsp;Jan C. Minx","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70070","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70070","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;Policymakers have little time left to prevent the worst impacts of climate change and limit global warming to well below two degrees. However, a systematic assessment of the available scientific evidence—that is up to date—is not always available to understand what climate policies work, to what extent, in what context, why, and for whom. This is also true for demand-side policies, including those that use behavioral change to reduce energy demand and the related carbon emissions. There is an ever-burgeoning literature on policy interventions that target behavioral change among households, with new insights and evidence of their efficacy in different contexts. This living systematic review (LSR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) synthesizes this evidence to provide timely, rigorous and up-to-date insights on this topic. Our LSR and NMA integrate the evidence available from multiple disciplines to answer the following questions: (1) to what extent can information, behavioral (including feedback, social comparison and motivation), and monetary based interventions reduce energy consumption of households; (2) what the relative effectiveness of interventions is; and (3) how effective are the combinations of different interventions. In doing so, we also pilot an LSR for climate policy solutions and share learnings with the community. To fulfill these objectives, we searched the academic and gray literature for experimental and quasi-experimental studies that quantitatively assessed the impact of either behavioral, monetary, or information interventions (or a combination of these) on energy consumption (including electricity and heat) of the households in residential buildings. We searched the relevant databases: Web of Science Core Collections Citation Indexes, Scopus, JSTOR, RePec, Google Scholar, and gray literature repository Policy Commons to retrieve over 109,000 potentially relevant article abstracts and apply machine learning algorithms to identify the most likely relevant papers. Note that with this update, that includes the relevant literature published till end of December 2024, we added roughly 53,000 potentially relevant documents to the previously existing pool of potentially relevant literature from Khanna et al. (2021). A team of four reviewers screened the titles and abstracts of studies identified as being potentially relevant by the machine learning algorithm, with full-text assessments and double-coded data collection following for a set of included studies. The effect sizes reported by different studies were harmonized to Cohen's d for synthesis. We used a multilevel random effects model and NMA for calculating the average intervention effect. We adjust our estimates for possible small-study effects (publication bias). The NMA allows us to visualize the relative efficacy of the interventions through rankograms and cumulative ranking probability plots. Unlike previous meta-analyses in this field of research, this study also implemen","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1,"publicationDate":"2025-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70070","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145469836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"SciDaSynth: Interactive Structured Data Extraction From Scientific Literature With Large Language Model","authors":"Xingbo Wang,&nbsp;Samantha L. Huey,&nbsp;Rui Sheng,&nbsp;Saurabh Mehta,&nbsp;Fei Wang","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70073","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70073","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The explosion of scientific literature has made the efficient and accurate extraction of structured data a critical component for advancing scientific knowledge and supporting evidence-based decision-making. However, existing tools often struggle to extract and structure multimodal, varied, and inconsistent information across documents into standardized formats. We introduce SciDaSynth, a novel interactive system powered by large language models that automatically generates structured data tables according to users' queries by integrating information from diverse sources, including text, tables, and figures. Furthermore, SciDaSynth supports efficient table data validation and refinement, featuring multi-faceted visual summaries and semantic grouping capabilities to resolve cross-document data inconsistencies. A within-subjects study with nutrition and NLP researchers demonstrates SciDaSynth's effectiveness in producing high-quality structured data more efficiently than baseline methods. We discuss design implications for human–AI collaborative systems supporting data extraction tasks.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1,"publicationDate":"2025-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12581027/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145446136","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"PROTOCOL: The Effects of Land Management Policies on the Environment and People in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review","authors":"Pierre Marion,&nbsp;Ingunn Storhaug,&nbsp;Sanghwa Lee,&nbsp;Claudia Romero,&nbsp;Constanza Gonzalez Parrao,&nbsp;Birte Snilstveit","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70062","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cl2.70062","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Addressing the climate change and biodiversity loss crises while ensuring livelihoods are not negatively affected is a matter that requires urgent action. A recently published Evidence Gap Map (EGM) identified no recent systematic reviews on land management interventions. Drawing from this EGM, the review aims to examine and synthesise the latest evidence on what works, how, and at what cost to improve environmental and human welfare outcomes in land management in low- and middle-income countries. We will address the following research questions: (1) What are the effects of protected areas, land rights and decentralisation interventions on environmental and poverty outcomes? Do effects vary by population, location, or other factors? (2) What are the barriers and enablers that impact the effectiveness of these interventions? (3) What is the cost-effectiveness of these interventions? The set of interventions will be based on the studies identified in the EGM, and we will search, appraise and synthesise additional evidence on influencing factors and cost data.</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1,"publicationDate":"2025-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12558594/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145393626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}