Better evidence for a better world

Campbell evidence and gap maps

Coming soon – Campbell EGMs are a new evidence synthesis product. Plain language summaries of our EGMs will be published on this website. The interactive EGMs and full EGM reports will be available in our journal on the Wiley Online Library platform: click here.



Learn more about Campbell EGMs

Other EGMs

Campbell has produced maps on other topics, sometimes in partnership with other organisations.



See our other EGMs
Better evidence for a better world
Better evidence for a better world

Better evidence for a better world (167)

Additional Info

  • Published date 2019-08-05
  • Title Other evidence and gap maps (EGMs)

Additional Info

  • Authors Padraic Fleming, Sinead McGilloway, Marian Hernon, Mairead Furlong, Siobhain O’Doherty, Fiona Keogh, Tim Stainton
  • Published date 2019-01-25
  • Coordinating group(s) Disability
  • Type of document Review
  • PLS Title Individualised funding has positive effects on health and social care outcomes
  • PLS Description Individualised funding is an umbrella term for disability supports funded on an individual basis. It aims to facilitate self-direction, empowerment, independence and self-determination. This review examines the effects and experiences of individualised funding.
  • Title Individualised funding has positive effects on health and social care outcomes
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Individualised funding provides personal budgets for people with disabilities, to increase independence and quality of life. The approach has consistently positive effects on overall satisfaction, with some evidence also of improvements in quality of life and sense of security. There may also be fewer adverse effects. Despite implementation challenges, recipients generally prefer this intervention to traditional supports.

    What is this review about?

    Individualised funding is an umbrella term for disability supports funded on an individual basis. It aims to facilitate self-direction, empowerment, independence and self-determination. This review examines the effects and experiences of individualised funding.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of individualised funding on a range of health and social care outcomes. It also presents evidence on the experiences of people with a disability, their paid and unpaid supports and implementation successes and challenges from the perspective of both funding and support organisations.

    What are the main findings of this review?

    This study is a review of 73 studies of individualised funding for people with disabilities. These include four quantitative studies, 66 qualitative and three based on a mixed-methods design. The data refer to a 24-year period from 1992 to 2016, with data for 14,000 people. Studies were carried out in Europe, the US, Canada and Australia.

    What studies are included?

    Overall, the evidence suggests positive effects of individualised funding with respect to quality of life, client satisfaction and safety. There may also be fewer adverse effects. There is less evidence of impact for physical functioning, unmet need and cost effectiveness. The review finds no differences between approaches for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT), self-perceived health and community participation.

    Recipients particularly value: flexibility, improved self-image and self-belief; more value for money; community integration; freedom to choose ‘who supports you; ‘social opportunities’; and needs-led support. Many people chose individualised funding due to previous negative experiences of traditional, segregated, group-orientated supports.

    Successful implementation is supported by strong, trusting and collaborative relationships in their support network with both paid and unpaid individuals. This facilitates processes such as information sourcing, staff recruitment, network building and support with administrative and management tasks. These relationships are strengthened by financial recognition for family and friends, appropriate rates of pay, a shift in power from agencies to the individual or avoidance of paternalistic behaviour.

    Challenges include long delays in accessing and receiving funds, which are compounded by overly complex and bureaucratic processes. There can be a general lack of clarity (e.g. allowable budget use) and inconsistent approaches to delivery as well as unmet information needs. Hidden costs or administrative charges can be a source of considerable concern and stress.

    Staff mention involvement of local support organisations, availability of a support network for the person with a disability and timely relevant training as factors supporting implementation. Staff also highlight logistical challenges in support needs in an individualised way including, for example, responding to individual expectations, and socio-demographic differences.

    What do the findings of this review mean?

    This review provides an up-to-date and in-depth synthesis of the available evidence over 25 years. It shows that there are benefits of the individualised funding model. This finding suggests that practitioners and funders should consider moving away from scepticism, towards opportunity and enthusiasm. Policy makers need to be aware of the set-up and transitionary costs involved. Investment in education and training will facilitate deeper understanding of individualised funding and the mechanisms for successful implementation.

    Future studies should incorporate longer follow-ups at multiple points over a longer period. The authors of the review encourage mixed-methods approaches in further systematic reviews in the field of health and social care, to provide a more holistic assessment of the effectiveness and impact of complex ‘real-world’ interventions.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies up to the end of 2016. This Campbell systematic review was published in January 2019.

  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2019.3

Additional Info

  • Authors Maren Duvendack, Philip Mader
  • Published date 2019-01-07
  • Coordinating group(s) International Development, Methods
  • Type of document Review
  • PLS Title Financial inclusion interventions have very small and inconsistent impacts
  • PLS Description Financial inclusion programmes seek to increase access to financial services such as credit, savings, insurance and money transfers and so allow poor and low-income households in low- and middle-income countries to enhance their welfare, grasp opportunities, mitigate shocks, and ultimately escape poverty. This systematic review of reviews assesses the evidence on economic, social, behavioural and gender-related outcomes from financial inclusion.
  • Title Financial inclusion interventions have very small and inconsistent impacts
  • Library Image Library Image
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    A wide range of financial inclusion programmes seek to increase poor people’s access to financial services to enhance the welfare of poor and low-income households in low- and middle-income countries. The impacts of financial inclusion interventions are small and variable. Although some services have some positive effects for some people, overall financial inclusion may be no better than comparable alternatives, such as graduation or livelihoods interventions.

    What is this review about?

    Financial inclusion programmes seek to increase access to financial services such as credit, savings, insurance and money transfers and so allow poor and low-income households in low- and middle-income countries to enhance their welfare, grasp opportunities, mitigate shocks, and ultimately escape poverty.  This systematic review of reviews assesses the evidence on economic, social, behavioural and gender-related outcomes from financial inclusion.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This systematic review of reviews systematically collects and appraises all of the existing meta-studies – that is systematic reviews and meta-analyses – of the impact of financial inclusion. The authors first analyse the strength of the methods used in those meta-studies, then synthesise the findings from those that are of a sufficient quality, and finally, report the implications for policy, programming, practice and further research arising from the evidence. Eleven studies are included in the analysis.

    What are the main findings of this review?

    What studies are included?

    This review includes studies that synthesise the findings of other studies (meta-studies) regarding the impacts of a range of financial inclusion interventions on economic, social, gender and behavioural outcomes. A total of 32 such meta-studies were identified, of which 11 were of sufficient methodological quality to be included in the final analysis. The review examined meta-studies from 2010 onwards that spanned the globe in terms of geographical coverage.

    Impacts are more likely to be positive than negative, but the effects vary, are often mixed, and appear not to be transformative in scope or scale, as they largely occur in the early stages of the causal chain of effects. Overall, the effects of financial services on core economic poverty indicators such as incomes, assets or spending, and on health status and other social outcomes, are small and inconsistent. Moreover, there is no evidence for meaningful behaviour-change outcomes leading to further positive effects.

    The effects of financial services on women’s empowerment appear to be generally positive, but they depend upon programme features which are often only peripheral or unrelated to the financial service itself (such as education about rights), cultural and geographical context, and what aspects of empowerment are considered.

    Accessing savings opportunities appears to have small but much more consistently positive effects for poor people, and bears fewer downside risks for clients than credit. A large number of the meta-studies included in the final analysis voiced concerns about the low quality of the primary evidence base that formed the basis of their syntheses. This raises concerns about the reliability of the overall findings of meta-studies.

    What do the findings of this review mean?

    This systematic review of reviews draws on the largest-ever evidence base on financial inclusion impacts.  The weak effects found warn against unrealistic hype for financial inclusion, as previously happened for microcredit. There are substantial evidence gaps, notably studies of sufficient duration to measure higher-level impacts which take time to materialize, and for specific outcomes such as debt levels or indebtedness patterns and the link to macroeconomic development.

    This study is the first review of reviews published by the Campbell Collaboration. Some important limitations were encountered working at this level of systematisation.  It is recommended that authors of primary studies and meta-studies engage more critically with study quality and ensure better, more detailed reporting of their concepts, data and methods. More methods guidance and clearer reporting standards for the social science and international development context would be helpful.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies in November 2017, updating elements of the searches in January 2018. This Campbell Systematic Review was published in January 2019.

  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2019.2

Additional Info

  • Authors Heather Hensman Kettrey, Robert A. Marx, Emily E. Tanner-Smith
  • Published date 2019-01-04
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review
  • PLS Title Bystander programs increase bystander intervention but no effect on perpetrating sexual assault
  • PLS Description Sexual assault is a significant problem among adolescents and college students across the world. One promising strategy for preventing these assaults is the implementation of bystander sexual assault prevention programs, which encourage young people to intervene when witnessing incidents or warning signs of sexual assault. This review examines the effects bystander programs have on knowledge and attitudes concerning sexual assault and bystander behavior, bystander intervention when witnessing sexual assault or its warning signs, and participants’ rates of perpetration of sexual assault.
  • Title Effects of bystander programs on the prevention of sexual assault among adolescents and college students
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2019.1

Additional Info

  • Authors Angela Higginson, Kathryn Benier, Yulia Shenderovich, Laura Bedford, Lorraine Mazerolle, Joseph Murray
  • Published date 2018-11-29
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice, International Development
  • Type of document Title Protocol Review Plain language summary
  • Category Image Category Image
  • PLS Title Evidence shows which factors predict gang membership in low- and middle-income countries, but more studies needed
  • PLS Description Youth gang membership is associated with delinquency, violent crime and trafficking – and gang members are themselves frequently the victims of these offences. Yet youth gangs can also provide a form of social capital, a sense of belonging and purpose to disenfranchised youth. This review identifies the factors associated with young people joining gangs, and the differences between gang-involved and non-gang-involved youth. Understanding these associations is essential to reduce the levels of gang membership and the incidence of related violence.
  • Title Factors associated with youth gang membership in low- and middle-income countries
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2018.11

Additional Info

  • Authors Trine Filges, Christoffer Scavenius Sonne-Schmidt, Bjørn Christian Viinholt Nielsen
  • Published date 2018-10-11
  • Coordinating group(s) Education
  • Type of document Title Protocol Review Plain language summary Data
  • PLS Title Small class size has at best a small effect on academic achievement
  • PLS Description Increasing class size is one of the key variables that policy makers can use to control spending on education. But the consensus among many in education research is that smaller classes are effective in improving student achievement which has led to a policy of class size reductions in a number of US states, the UK, and the Netherlands. This policy is disputed by those who argue that the effects of class size reduction are only modest and that there are other more cost-effective strategies for improving educational standards. Despite the important policy and practice implications of the topic, the research literature on the educational effects of class-size differences has not been clear. This review systematically reports findings from relevant studies that measure the effects of class size on academic achievement.
  • Title Small class sizes for improving student achievement in primary and secondary schools
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2018.10

Additional Info

  • Authors Emily A. Hennessy, Emily E. Tanner-Smith, Andrew J. Finch, Nila Sathe, Shannon Kugley
  • Published date 2018-10-04
  • Coordinating group(s) Education, Social Welfare
  • Type of document Title Protocol Review Plain language summary
  • Category Image Category Image
  • PLS Title There is insufficient evidence to know whether recovery high schools and collegiate recovery communities are effective
  • PLS Description Based on the results of one study, recovery high schools (RHSs) may reduce high school students’ school absenteeism, marijuana use, and other drug use, and increase abstinence from drugs; but RHSs may be no better or worse than other high schools in improving grades, reducing truancy, or reducing alcohol use. It is unclear whether collegiate recovery communities (CRCs) are effective in promoting academic success and reducing substance use among college students.
  • Title Recovery schools for improving behavioral and academic outcomes among students in recovery from substance use disorders
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2018.9

Additional Info

  • Authors Jennifer Petkovic, Vivian Welch, Marie Helena Jacob, Manosila Yoganathan, Ana Patricia Ayala, Heather Cunningham, Peter Tugwell
  • Published date 2018-09-10
  • Coordinating group(s) Knowledge Translation and Implementation
  • Type of document Title Protocol Review Plain language summary
  • PLS Title Policy briefs make systematic reviews easier to understand but little evidence of impact on use of study findings
  • PLS Description Systematic reviews are long and technical documents that may be hard for policymakers to use when making decisions. Evidence summaries are short documents that describe research findings in systematic reviews. These summaries may simplify the use of systematic reviews. Other names for evidence reviews are policy briefs, evidence briefs, summaries of findings, or plain language summaries. The goal of this review was to learn whether evidence summaries help policymakers use evidence from systematic reviews. This review also aimed to identify the best ways to present the evidence summary to increase the use of evidence.
  • Title Do evidence summaries increase health policy-makers’ use of evidence from systematic reviews?
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2018.8

Additional Info

  • Authors Ruth Pitt
  • Published date 2018-08-22
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Policy brief
  • Title Policy brief 5: Effectiveness of focused policing strategies
  • English

    This Campbell policy brief summarises findings from systematic reviews on focused policing strategies, the consequences of geographically-focused policing for neighbouring areas, and community perceptions of police legitimacy.

Additional Info

  • Authors Hugh Waddington, Ada Sonnenfeld, Juliette Finetti, Marie Gaarder, Denny John, Jennifer Stevenson
  • Published date 2019-08-02
  • Coordinating group(s) International Development
  • Type of document Plain language summary
  • Title Citizen engagement improves access to public services in low- and middle-income countries, but evidence on development outcomes is limited
  • Library Image Library Image
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Citizen engagement improves access to public services in low- and middle-income countries, but evidence on development outcomes is limited

    Interventions promoting citizen engagement in public service management involve participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) mechanisms. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), these interventions are effective in improving active citizenship and service delivery, and may improve the responsiveness of service provider staff for services provided directly by public servants (for example, in health).

    In contrast, interventions providing information to stimulate pressure on politicians are not usually effective in improving provider response or service delivery. There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether these interventions are effective in improving wellbeing or the relationship between citizens and the state.

    What is this review about?

    Failures in governance lead to the exclusion of large portions of society from public services and to waste, fraud and corruption. This review assesses evidence for interventions promoting better governance of public services: participation (participatory planning), inclusion (involvement of marginalised groups), transparency (information about citizen rights or performance of public officials), and accountability (citizen feedback) mechanisms, known collectively as PITA mechanisms.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of interventions to promote citizen engagement in public service management. The review synthesises evidence from 35 impact evaluations and 36 related studies of interventions promoting participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) mechanisms.

    What studies are included?

    The review includes impact evaluations relating to 35 PITA programmes from 20 LMICs. In addition, 36 qualitative and programmatic documents were included to strengthen understanding of implementation context and programme mechanisms.

    What are the main findings of this review?

    Citizen engagement interventions (i) are usually effective in improving intermediate user engagement outcomes, for example, meeting attendance and contributions to community funds; (ii) improve access to and quality of services but not service use outcomes; (iii) can lead to improvements in some wellbeing outcomes such as health and productive outcomes; (iv) may improve tax collection; but (v) do not usually lead to changes in provider action outcomes such as public spending, staff motivation and corruption. There may be an exception where there is direct interaction between citizens and service providers in the regular delivery of services. Interventions providing performance information do not generally improve access or lead to improvements in service quality.

    Only interventions focused on services delivered by front-line staff (e.g., in health) achieve positive outcomes. Those delivered without public interaction (e.g., roads) do not. However, engagement with civil society organisations and interest groups may lead to better outcomes for services accessed independently of providers. Inclusive citizen engagement programmes have at least as big an effect on user engagement and access to services as less inclusive approaches.

    Many interventions experienced challenges stemming from a lack of positive engagement with supply-side actors, whose power the interventions often sought to diminish. Interventions implemented with the strong support of the targeted service providers were better able to realise positive impacts.

    Approaches to citizen-service provider engagement appear to work more effectively when implemented through phased, facilitated collaborative processes rather than one-off accountability meetings that are seen as confrontational.

    Only four studies present any data on intervention costs. This limited the potential for any analysis of comparisons across programmes and settings.

    In interpreting the findings, it must be noted that each individual outcome is reported in only a few studies and that included studies have important methodological weaknesses with risks of bias arising from weak design, analysis and reporting.

    What do the findings of this review mean?

    For policy and programme managers: A collaborative rather than confrontational approach with the service providers whose services are under scrutiny is more likely to be effective. Engaging communities may require using civil society organisations to facilitate the community’s participation. Programme design should ensure positive engagement with supply-side actors within the intervention setting.

    For researchers: More high-quality studies are needed, comparing different approaches to improving service delivery, paying attention to complete description of the different approaches being compared. Since implementation is a crucial factor, mixed methods studies should be the norm, and will help focus on equity considerations which have been neglected. Finally, there should be standardisation of indicators in PITA studies.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies up to March 2018. This Campbell systematic review was published in June 2019.

  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.1025
Page 1 of 17

Contact us

  • P.O. Box 222, Skøyen,
    N-0213 Oslo, Norway
  • (+47) 21 07 81 00
  • info@campbellcollaboration.org