@article{discovery1571205,
          volume = {14},
            note = {This version is the author accepted manuscript. For information on re-use, please refer to the publisher's terms and conditions.},
           title = {Producing policy relevant systematic reviews: navigating the policy-research interface},
           pages = {197--220},
          number = {2},
            year = {2018},
         journal = {Evidence \& Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice},
             url = {http://doi.org/10.1332/174426417X14987303892442},
            issn = {1744-2648},
        abstract = {This study employed insider research and reflective practice to investigate exchanges across the research-policy interface to understand the practice of producing policy-relevant systematic reviews. Interviewees came from 11 systematic reviews or review programmes which spanned four models of policy-relevant reviews and between them provided evidence for understanding policy problems, comparing policy options, or implementing policy decisions. No review methodology was found to be uniquely appropriate for policy-relevant systematic reviews. It was the mutual engagement across the research-policy interface that made the reviews policy-relevant. This involved thinking about the issues and seeing them from multiple viewpoints to identify and shape questions; this prompted implicit or explicit value-driven debates. The intellectual work to shape a policy-relevant systematic review is an iterative, collective endeavour that requires partners from either side of the policy-research interface to engage with the unfamiliar, listen, challenge and co-construct questions and answers.},
        keywords = {Framing; policy relevance; research synthesis; systematic review},
          author = {Oliver, S and Bangpan, M and Dickson, K}
}