Cargando…

An Overview of Systematic Reviews to Inform the Institutional Design of Scientific Advisory Committees

The current lack of synthesized evidence for informing the design of scientific advisory committees (SACs) is surprising in light of the widespread use of SACs throughout decision‐making processes. While existing research points to the importance of quality, relevance, and legitimacy for SACs'...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Behdinan, Asha, Gunn, Elliot, Baral, Prativa, Sritharan, Lathika, Fafard, Patrick, Hoffman, Steven J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174971/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30333927
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201800019
_version_ 1783361399146151936
author Behdinan, Asha
Gunn, Elliot
Baral, Prativa
Sritharan, Lathika
Fafard, Patrick
Hoffman, Steven J.
author_facet Behdinan, Asha
Gunn, Elliot
Baral, Prativa
Sritharan, Lathika
Fafard, Patrick
Hoffman, Steven J.
author_sort Behdinan, Asha
collection PubMed
description The current lack of synthesized evidence for informing the design of scientific advisory committees (SACs) is surprising in light of the widespread use of SACs throughout decision‐making processes. While existing research points to the importance of quality, relevance, and legitimacy for SACs' effectiveness, those planning SACs would benefit from efforts to systematically pinpoint optimal designs of these committees for maximal effectiveness. Search strategies are developed for seven electronic databases. Of the 1895 systematic reviews identified, six reviews meet the inclusion criteria: they report the results of systematic reviews that followed a clearly identified systematic methodology, examine factors related to the design of SACs, and involve processes in the natural or social sciences. These reviews collectively summarize 444 primary studies. Three of the six reviews look at the impacts of SAC size, two evaluate the influence of the committee's diversity, and half mention the importance of properly on‐boarding new members. The goal is to identify recurring themes to understand the specific institutional features that optimize the usefulness of SACs. In turn, this overview of systematic reviews aims to contribute to a growing body of literature on how SACs should be designed to maximize their effectiveness and helpfulness for decision‐making.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6174971
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61749712018-10-15 An Overview of Systematic Reviews to Inform the Institutional Design of Scientific Advisory Committees Behdinan, Asha Gunn, Elliot Baral, Prativa Sritharan, Lathika Fafard, Patrick Hoffman, Steven J. Glob Chall Essay The current lack of synthesized evidence for informing the design of scientific advisory committees (SACs) is surprising in light of the widespread use of SACs throughout decision‐making processes. While existing research points to the importance of quality, relevance, and legitimacy for SACs' effectiveness, those planning SACs would benefit from efforts to systematically pinpoint optimal designs of these committees for maximal effectiveness. Search strategies are developed for seven electronic databases. Of the 1895 systematic reviews identified, six reviews meet the inclusion criteria: they report the results of systematic reviews that followed a clearly identified systematic methodology, examine factors related to the design of SACs, and involve processes in the natural or social sciences. These reviews collectively summarize 444 primary studies. Three of the six reviews look at the impacts of SAC size, two evaluate the influence of the committee's diversity, and half mention the importance of properly on‐boarding new members. The goal is to identify recurring themes to understand the specific institutional features that optimize the usefulness of SACs. In turn, this overview of systematic reviews aims to contribute to a growing body of literature on how SACs should be designed to maximize their effectiveness and helpfulness for decision‐making. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2018-08-08 /pmc/articles/PMC6174971/ /pubmed/30333927 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201800019 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Published by WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Essay
Behdinan, Asha
Gunn, Elliot
Baral, Prativa
Sritharan, Lathika
Fafard, Patrick
Hoffman, Steven J.
An Overview of Systematic Reviews to Inform the Institutional Design of Scientific Advisory Committees
title An Overview of Systematic Reviews to Inform the Institutional Design of Scientific Advisory Committees
title_full An Overview of Systematic Reviews to Inform the Institutional Design of Scientific Advisory Committees
title_fullStr An Overview of Systematic Reviews to Inform the Institutional Design of Scientific Advisory Committees
title_full_unstemmed An Overview of Systematic Reviews to Inform the Institutional Design of Scientific Advisory Committees
title_short An Overview of Systematic Reviews to Inform the Institutional Design of Scientific Advisory Committees
title_sort overview of systematic reviews to inform the institutional design of scientific advisory committees
topic Essay
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174971/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30333927
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201800019
work_keys_str_mv AT behdinanasha anoverviewofsystematicreviewstoinformtheinstitutionaldesignofscientificadvisorycommittees
AT gunnelliot anoverviewofsystematicreviewstoinformtheinstitutionaldesignofscientificadvisorycommittees
AT baralprativa anoverviewofsystematicreviewstoinformtheinstitutionaldesignofscientificadvisorycommittees
AT sritharanlathika anoverviewofsystematicreviewstoinformtheinstitutionaldesignofscientificadvisorycommittees
AT fafardpatrick anoverviewofsystematicreviewstoinformtheinstitutionaldesignofscientificadvisorycommittees
AT hoffmanstevenj anoverviewofsystematicreviewstoinformtheinstitutionaldesignofscientificadvisorycommittees
AT behdinanasha overviewofsystematicreviewstoinformtheinstitutionaldesignofscientificadvisorycommittees
AT gunnelliot overviewofsystematicreviewstoinformtheinstitutionaldesignofscientificadvisorycommittees
AT baralprativa overviewofsystematicreviewstoinformtheinstitutionaldesignofscientificadvisorycommittees
AT sritharanlathika overviewofsystematicreviewstoinformtheinstitutionaldesignofscientificadvisorycommittees
AT fafardpatrick overviewofsystematicreviewstoinformtheinstitutionaldesignofscientificadvisorycommittees
AT hoffmanstevenj overviewofsystematicreviewstoinformtheinstitutionaldesignofscientificadvisorycommittees