what we do

Our Approach: We delivered a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) of the existing literature on the subject of introducing arrangements for the registration of staff working in residential children’s homes. REAs use systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research. They are characterized by rigorous and explicit methods but provide a quick synthesis of the available evidence by shortening the traditional systematic review process. This can be important when limited time or financial resources mean there is not enough time to conduct a full systematic review. Our review summarised the findings from 37 papers and reports into a narrative synthesis.

Impact: The DfE used our report to inform the range of questions included in a subsequent public consultation exercise.

Our Approach: We employed Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) methods for this project as this was most appropriate for the client’s needs. Using these methods meant we comprehensively established the quantity and quality of the available empirical evidence. We drew together all of the published evidence of the relative importance in primary pedagogical practice of: subject knowledge; subject-specific pedagogical knowledge; and general pedagogical knowledge. Our data retrieval specialists developed search strings and used these to search a number of data bases. We found 1130 papers which we refined to 75 following a rigorous two-stage process of systematically applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria. We used our data extraction and appraisal tools to individually assess each study in depth and synthesised the information in a narrative report.

Impact: The Teaching Schools Council used our report to inform the content of a practical guide they produced to support practitioners.

Our Approach: We used Rapid Evidence Assessment Methods to identify, appraise and synthesise the available relevant evidence. As with all our REAs, we conducted the review in accordance with the guidelines developed and written by Government Social Research Members and the EPPI centre at the Institute of Education. We took a rigorous and systematic approach and ensured we liaised regularly with key stakeholders at LCC.

Impact: The report contributed significantly to the wider evaluation by synthesising the evidence on RP and FGC. Vitally, the report was written in a way that was succinct and accessible for busy practitioners and decision makers.It clearly laid the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence base as well as highlighting where the gaps in knowledge are as well as suggestions of how these may best be addressed.

Our Approach: We conducted a rapid evidence assessment, this maintains the same level of academic rigour as a full systematic review but within a shorter time frame and specified budget. Our information retrieval specialists were able to identify a great deal of published and unpublished literature on specialist policing skills. We applied our agreed criteria to decide which studies to include using a systematic approach. We used our own data extraction and appraisal tools to individually assess each study in depth. We took a sample of the papers and two of our assessors completed the tools for these studies and compared their scores; they continued this process until a good level of inter-rater reliability was established. We synthesised the information into a narrative report that was accessible for policy and practitioner audiences.

Impact: The College were assured by the quality of the review and so used this information to set out the skill requirements expected of officers. The review was also used to set the skills threshold for the foundation tests, to identify potential skills gaps and to develop appropriate skills tests. 

Our Approach: We delivered a Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) of available evidence on the prevention, identification and treatment of PMH. The review pulled together the available research evidence on three issues: 1. The most effective community-based perinatal mental health practices and interventions; 2. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PMH practices and interventions for clients from different socio-economic and cultural backgrounds; and 3. Prevention, identification, and treatment of PMH disorders. We summarised the findings from 35 papers into a narrative synthesis.

Impact: The project successfully described what we currently know about cost effective PMH interventions and the landscape of service provision and women’s needs in Lambeth. LEAP used our report to guide local PMH service development.

Our Approach: We delivered this review using mixed methods in a three stage process: we conducted a rapid evidence assessment (REA) to identify evidence of the relationships between smoking and dementia, we developed a robust business case based on rigorous Social Return On Investment (SROI) modelling and we undertook primary, qualitative research which involved interviewing smokers about their attitudes towards dementia risk and smoking behaviour change. We then disseminated the key findings to relevant commissioning and service delivery stakeholders.

Impact: The project established an evidence that key stakeholders, in particular local authorities and clinical commissioning groups, used to inform strategy and service delivery in relation to improving health through promoting smoking cessation.

Our Approach: We employed Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) methods for this project as this was most appropriate for the client’s needs. Using these methods meant we comprehensively established the quantity and quality of the available empirical evidence. We drew together all of the published evidence of the relative importance in primary pedagogical practice of: subject knowledge; subject-specific pedagogical knowledge; and general pedagogical knowledge. Our data retrieval specialists developed search strings and used these to search a number of data bases. We found 1130 papers which we refined to 75 following a rigorous two-stage process of systematically applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria. We used our data extraction and appraisal tools to individually assess each study in depth and synthesised the information in a narrative report.

Impact: The reviews were deemed to be of such high quality that they provided evidence to support stakeholders working on the implementation of selected actions under the Interim National Drugs Strategy (2009-2016). They also facilitated evidence-based decision making on the selection, implementation and evaluation of interventions.

Our Approach: Based on our experience of working with OBA processes and procedures in several councils, knowledge transfer was our primary objective. Our approach was to deliver a programme of work that will build the necessary capability, capacity & competence in Basildon to enable the council to implement an outcomes driven approach to strategic planning, delivery and budgeting successfully. Our approach is designed to ensure the successful implementation of the key principles of effective OBA practice.

Impact: We are making progress towards ensuring the council has the capacity to develop robust, outcomes based performance management practices and procedures.

Our Approach: We used Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) methods to deliver this project. We utilised the same level of academic rigour as would be expected in a full systematic review, however, we delivered the review in a shorter timeframe. To do this, we used two assessors to appraise a selection of the studies until a good level of inter-rater reliability was established, then the rest of the studies were appraised by only one assessor. Some of the leading experts in the field made valuable contributions as part of the team for this project. They contributed to the development of search strings to ensure we were able to retrieve the most relevant and up to date information. We used our bespoke data extraction and appraisal tools to assess each study and used the findings from this process in the final report. The report synthesised the evidence around five questions specified by the Department of Energy and Climate Change using themes to organise the findings. 

Impact: The review was used to directly inform decision making on whether to commission a field trial designed to evaluate energy savings from smarter heating controls.

Our Approach: We employed Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) methods for this project as this was most appropriate for the client’s needs. Using these methods meant we comprehensively established the quantity and quality of the available empirical evidence. We drew together all of the published evidence of the relative importance in primary pedagogical practice of: subject knowledge; subject-specific pedagogical knowledge; and general pedagogical knowledge. Our data retrieval specialists developed search strings and used these to search a number of data bases. We found 1130 papers which we refined to 75 following a rigorous two-stage process of systematically applying the inclusion/exclusion criteria. We used our data extraction and appraisal tools to individually assess each study in depth and synthesised the information in a narrative report.

Impact: This review was used by Bates Wells Braithwaite and the PDSA to put a proposal to the Charity Commission in order to make key decisions. 

Our Approach: We began by conducting searches of four electronic databases: Social Policy & Practice, Planex, Scopus and ASSIA. We used several different search strings, each focussed on housing needs of older people; for some searches we added an additional filter to identify work done in London in particular. Our searches identified a total of 4244 potentially relevant titles. On further inspection, we retrieved abstracts (summaries) for a total of 56 papers.

Impact: The review highlighted key issues for consideration for providers working with older people in the next decade in relation to housing and support. It was used by the Board and Trustees to inform the future strategic direction for the charity.