Campbell Systematic Reviews最新文献

{"title":"Non-Criminal Justice Interventions for Countering Cognitive and Behavioural Radicalisation Amongst Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of Effectiveness and Implementation: A Systematic Review","authors":"James Lewis, Sarah Marsden, James Hewitt, Chloe Squires, Anna Stefaniak","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70079","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70079","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Growing numbers of young people are encountering the counter-terrorism system. This international trend raises important questions about the effectiveness of efforts to prevent and counter childhood and adolescent radicalisation. This review examines the effectiveness and implementation of interventions designed to counter cognitive and behavioural radicalisation amongst children and adolescents up to 19 years of age. It examines secondary and tertiary interventions working with at-risk and radicalised youth outside the criminal justice system. This focus reflects the growing recognition that diverting young people away from the criminal justice system helps mitigate the risks of securitisation, criminalisation, and stigmatisation. This review sought to answer three research questions: (1) Are secondary and tertiary interventions delivered outside of the criminal justice system effective at countering the cognitive and behavioural radicalisation of children and adolescents? (2) Are secondary and tertiary interventions delivered outside of the criminal justice system being implemented as intended? (3) What factors influence how interventions working with children and adolescents outside of the criminal justice system are implemented? Studies were identified through electronic searches of 20 academic and 50 grey literature sources; hand searches of academic journals and clinical trial repositories; forward and backward citation searches; and consultation with academic experts. Studies published after 2000 in English were eligible for inclusion. Searches of academic and grey literature sources were conducted in August and September 2024, respectively, with all remaining searches completed by December 2024. Studies had to report on secondary or tertiary interventions or prevention work outside of the criminal justice system (i.e., outside of correctional, custodial, or probation contexts) that sought to counter cognitive and behavioural radicalisation, often referred to as countering violent extremism (CVE) programming. Three types of interventions were included: (1) those designed for children and adolescents; (2) those working with children and adolescents as part of wider cohorts, provided a significant proportion of clients were aged 19 or under, or that provided insights specific to children and adolescents; or (3) those working with youth (or young people), broadly defined. Experimental or stronger quasi-experimental research designs were eligible for inclusion in the assessment of effectiveness (Objective I). Inclusion criteria for the assessment of implementation (Objective II) and of implementation factors (Objective III) were broader, and included non-experimental quantitative designs and qualitative research. The corpus of evidence was screened by trained reviewers, guided by screening tools, across a title/abstract and full-text screening phase. Data were extracted using a piloted tool to capture key information on each included study.","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1,"publicationDate":"2025-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70079","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145887761","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":"Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk Reduction Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Rapid Systematic Review: A Systematic Review","authors":"Suchi Kapoor Malhotra, Ashrita Saran, Ratika Bhandari, Kevin Ouma Ojiambo, Sujata Shirodkar, Gavin Stewart, Howard White, Hugh Sharma Waddington","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70083","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70083","url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>Background:</b> Climate change and widespread environmental degradation have increased the risk of natural hazards in recent decades. Hydrological, meteorological, and climatological disasters have become more frequent globally (Parry et al. 2007; Cavallo and Noy 2009; CRED 2022), affecting over 3.9 billion people since 2000 and causing losses totalling USD 2.2 trillion (CRED 2020). However, the greatest consequences are felt in low and middle income countries (LMICs) where nearly 90% of deaths due to natural hazards between 2000 and 2018 (World Meteorological Organization 2021).</p><p><b>Objectives:</b> This rapid systematic review aimed to assess and synthesise the evidence on the effects and cost-effectiveness of ecosystem disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR) interventions in preventing and mitigating hazards and natural disasters, and consequences for natural capital and human development outcomes.</p><p><b>Search Methods:</b> We initially screened 529 articles from a prior review (Sudmeier-Rieux et al. 2021) on Eco-DRR interventions using a pre-validated tool in EPPI Reviewer to apply inclusion and exclusion criteria. We also identified project-level evaluations from organisations such as OECD DEReC, UNDP ERC, and the UNDRR. The search was further enhanced using machine learning in Open Alex to create a citation network, using the studies identified in the initial steps as a training dataset.</p><p><b>Selection Criteria:</b> This review includes empirical primary studies measuring the impacts and cost-effectiveness of Eco-DRR interventions. We searched for and included studies that evaluated primary outcomes, including hazard prevention, hazard mitigation and natural capital stocks; we also included secondary human development outcomes if reported in these papers. Eligible designs included ex-post impact evaluations using randomised assignment (randomised controlled trials [RCTs]), quasi-experimental designs (QEDs) and qualitative impact evaluation designs, and ex-ante impact evaluations using statistical modelling approaches. Economic and financial evaluations (cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses [CBAs]) were included to measure cost- effectiveness.</p><p><b>Data Collection and Analysis:</b> Two reviewers were assigned to screen the title and abstract for each study. Potentially relevant studies were then assessed at full text by two independent coders, following which data collection for the included studies was double-coded. A third reviewer resolved all disagreements. All included studies were assessed using a pre-validated critical appraisal tool based on the, ‘weakest link’ principle. Findings were synthesised by grouping outcomes into hazard prevention and mitigation, natural capital, and human development outcomes.</p><p><b>Results:</b> The review synthesised evidence from 58 studies, of which 28 were effectiveness studies, 20 were economic evaluations, and 10 were modelling studies. The effectiveness studi","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1,"publicationDate":"2025-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70083","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145887756","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":"Effectiveness of Interventions to Reduce Carbon-Emissions Within Secondary Healthcare: Systematic Review and Evidence and Gap Map","authors":"Liz Shaw, Noreen Orr, Hassanat M. Lawal, Simon Briscoe, Xiaoyu Yan, Jo Thompson Coon, G. J. Melendez-Torres, Clara Martin-Pintado, Ruth Garside","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70077","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70077","url":null,"abstract":"<p>‘The climate emergency is also a health emergency’ (England 2024). Climate change directly impacts the health of the human population through events such as earthquakes, flooding, heatwaves and drought, which increase the risk of injury, displacement, disruption of food supplies, infectious diseases and mental ill health (England 2024; Lenzen et al. 2020; Tennison et al. 2021; The Lancet Respiratory Medicine 2023). The impact on population health of these climate events, alongside indirect health consequences such as increased prevalence of respiratory conditions due to air pollution, places an increased burden on health services (Royal College of Physicians 2017). The environmental footprint of healthcare services contributes between 1% and 5% towards total global environmental impacts (Lenzen et al. 2020; Tennison et al. 2021). Reducing the impact of the healthcare system on climate change has the potential to benefit population health through improved air quality and diet, and increased activity levels (Mailloux et al. 2021). Due to the lack of systematic reviews which consider carbon emissions associated with the patient pathway within individual specialities, further research is needed to enable the identification and transformation of the most carbon-intensive clinical pathways, while ensuring future models of care can be delivered in a cost-effective manner without increasing emissions or compromising patient care. In 2008, the Climate Change Act set national targets for the 100% reduction of carbon emissions in England to 1990 levels by 2050 (‘Climate Change Act’ 2008). Within the United Kingdom, the National Health Service (NHS) has an important role in helping to achieve these targets, as the organisation accounts for 4% of England's carbon footprint (NHS England 2022). The UK government's Greener NHS team from NHS England asked the Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility to bring together and analyse research which assesses different ways carbon emissions resulting from hospital-led care can be reduced, without affecting the care patients receive in hospitals, at home and in clinics. Work focusing on identifying and delivering interventions to reduce carbon emissions within known carbon hotspots, such as NHS estates and facilities, travel and transport, supply chain, and certain medicines and medical and anaesthetic gases that have high global warming potential is already underway, alongside examining the effectiveness of different models of care delivery across all specialities (NHS England 2022; NHS Shared Business Services 2022). Evidence focusing on the effectiveness of interventions in reducing carbon emissions within secondary healthcare would be a useful complement to this work. An approach which considers the patient pathway may be beneficial in identifying interventions which consider wider healthcare systems and thus have a meaningful impact on reducing carbon emissions. This review was commissioned by th","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1,"publicationDate":"2025-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70077","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145824774","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: Health Visiting Interventions With 0–5 Year Olds and Their Families: An Evidence and Gap Map","authors":"Michael Fanner, Jane Barlow, Sarah Cowley, Karen Whittaker, Fiona Campbell, Anita Schrader McMillan, Mary Malone, Helen Critcher","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70078","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70078","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The overarching objective of this EGM is to identify what is known and where the evidence gaps are, in terms of (a) the impact of health visiting interventions; (b) experiences of delivering or receiving health visiting services across the UK; and (c) the barriers and facilitators to uptake or delivery of health visiting services. The focus will be inclusive in terms of study design and what is being assessed by the study with regard to outcome (see below for further information).</p><p>The authors bring a wide range of distinct expertise and experiences to this EGM in terms of direct health visiting practice, evidence-based policy formation and evaluation, research methodologies and lived experience. The whole team will contribute to the contents of the EGM in both the drafting and the final mapping. Jane Barlow and Fiona Campbell bring expertise and experience to EGM methods. Michael Fanner, Sarah Cowley, Karen Whittaker, Fiona Campbell and Mary Malone are qualified health visitors. Helen Critcher provides a parent/caregiver perspective to the EGM.</p><p>Michael Fanner and Anita Schrader McMillan will be responsible for the searching and retrieval of the information required for the EGM. We will seek statistical analysis expertise as and when required from a statistical expert within the Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford.</p><p>Michael Fanner was involved as a co-investigator on one study during the review period (since 2004) that was either directly concerned with health visiting practice or involved health visitors as one group of the practitioners delivering an intervention. Until September 2025, Michael Fanner was a Trustee for the Institute of Health Visiting (iHV), a charity and professional body that will have an interest in the results and conclusions of the review.</p><p>Jane Barlow was involved as a principal or co-investigator on four studies during the review period (since 2004) that were either directly concerned with health visiting practice or involved health visitors as one group of the practitioners delivering an intervention.</p><p>Sarah Cowley was involved as a principal or co-investigator on eight studies during the review period (since 2004) that were either directly concerned with health visiting practice or involved health visitors as one group of the practitioners delivering an intervention. Sarah Cowley has provided supervision to various doctoral and Master's students whose published work may be eligible for review. Sarah Cowley is a patron for ‘MESCH-UK’, an Australian maternal and early childhood sustained home visiting programme being implemented across the United Kingdom. Sarah Cowley is also a Trustee for the iHV, a charity and professional body for health visiting, which will have an interest in the results and conclusions of the review.</p><p>Karen Whittaker is employed by the iHV, a charity and professional body for health visiting, which has a vested interest in the conclusi","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1,"publicationDate":"2025-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70078","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145825015","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: Effectiveness of Interventions for the Prevention and Treatment of Obesity in Children and Adolescents From Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Gerardo A. Zavala,&nbsp;Muhammad Asim,&nbsp;Aliya Ayub,&nbsp;Abdul Momin Rizwan Ahmad,&nbsp;Asha Prasad Pillai,&nbsp;Elena Pavlou,&nbsp;Avantika Sharma,&nbsp;Bilal Ahmad Khan,&nbsp;Hira Shakoor,&nbsp;Liina Mansukoski,&nbsp;Olga P. Garcia Obregon,&nbsp;Umber Khan,&nbsp;Zala Khan,&nbsp;Aliya Rehman,&nbsp;Badur Un Nisa,&nbsp;Humaira Bibi,&nbsp;Romania Iqbal,&nbsp;Suneel Gill,&nbsp;Urooj Ashfaq,&nbsp;Farman Ullah Khan,&nbsp;Zulfiqar Bhutta,&nbsp;Sarah Forberger,&nbsp;Kamran Siddiqi,&nbsp;Marc Suhrcke,&nbsp;Simon Walker,&nbsp;Zainab Samad,&nbsp;Saima Afaq","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70081","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70081","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Childhood obesity represents a major and growing public health challenge, with a disproportionate burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). This systematic review will address a critical evidence gap by synthesising existing research on the effectiveness of interventions for the prevention and treatment of childhood obesity in LMICs. By focusing exclusively on interventions implemented within LMIC contexts, the review will account for the unique socio-cultural, economic, and environmental determinants that influence intervention delivery and effectiveness in these settings. A literature search will be conducted across MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library, without restrictions on publication date or language. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining interventions for the prevention or treatment of overweight and obesity among children aged 5–9 years and adolescents aged 10–19 years will be included. The primary outcomes will be age-adjusted body mass index (BMI), other measures of adiposity, and the prevalence of overweight and obesity. Secondary outcomes including dietary intake, physical activity, health-related quality of life, and adverse events will be reported narratively but excluded from the meta-analysis. Two independent reviewers will screen the studies, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Intervention effectiveness will first be summarised descriptively according to intervention type and key characteristics. Where appropriate, pooled effect sizes will be estimated using a random-effects meta-analysis. To explore and manage heterogeneity, analyses will be stratified by age group (children vs adolescents) and intervention purpose (prevention vs treatment). This review will identify effective strategies for preventing and treating childhood obesity in LMICs and explore the intervention features associated with successful outcomes. The findings will inform policy development and support the design and implementation of contextually appropriate interventions, contributing to global efforts to reduce obesity and prevent non-communicable diseases (NCDs).</p>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1,"publicationDate":"2025-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70081","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145852630","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":"Reliability and Validity of Risk Assessment Tools for Violent Extremism: A Systematic Review","authors":"Sébastien Brouillette-Alarie,&nbsp;Ghayda Hassan,&nbsp;Wynnpaul Varela,&nbsp;Emmanuel Danis,&nbsp;Sarah Ousman,&nbsp;Pablo Madriaza,&nbsp;Inga Lisa Pauls,&nbsp;Deniz Kilinc,&nbsp;David Pickup,&nbsp;Robert Pelzer,&nbsp;Eugene Borokhovski,&nbsp;the CPN-PREV team","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70080","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.70080","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 &lt;p&gt;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 &lt;i&gt;Der Screener—Islamismus&lt;/i&gt;, an actuarial scale. Studies mostly involved adult male participants susceptible to violent extremism (&lt;i&gt;N&lt;/i&gt; = 1106; &lt;i&gt;M&lt;/i&gt; = 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}