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'...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |