What is the evidence of the impact of initiatives to reduce sexual violence in humanitarian crises?
- What is the evidence of the impact of initiatives to reduce risk and incidence of sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict zones and other humanitarian crises in lower and middle income countries? Protocol written by Dr J Spangaro, Prof AB Zwi, C Adogu, Dr G Ranmuthugala, A/Prof G Powell Davies at School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of New South Wales
The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre) is part of the Social Science Research Unit at the Institute of Education, University of London. Since 1993, they have been at the forefront of carrying out systematic reviews and developing review methods in social science and public policy: making reliable research findings accessible to the people who need them, whether they are making policy, practice or personal decisions.
Most reviews of research take the form of traditional literature reviews, which usually examine the results of only a small part of the research evidence, and take the claims of report authors at face value. The key features of a systematic review or systematic research synthesis are that:
- explicit and transparent methods are used
- it is a piece of research following a standard set of stages
- it is accountable, replicable and updateable
- there is a requirement of user involvement to ensure reports are relevant and useful.
Systematic reviews aim to find as much as possible of the research relevant to the particular research questions, and use explicit methods to identify what can reliably be said on the basis of these studies. Methods should not only be explicit but systematic with the aim of producing varied and reliable results. Find out more on why it is important to be systematic. Such reviews then go on to synthesise research findings in a form which is easily accessible to those who have to make policy or practice decisions. In this way, systematic reviews reduce the bias which can occur in other approaches to reviewing research evidence.