Why Evidence-Based?
|
Why Evidence-Based?
Policy Analyses
Research Symposia Past
Special Reports
|
|
|
Why an Evidence-Based Approach to Global Health?
Evidence vs. Information
Global health practitioners, policymakers, managers, consumers and advocates require up-to-date and reliable information on what does and doesn't work in healthcare. In our search for answers, we are burdened by immense quantities of information varying greatly in quality. The divergent or conflicting results of studies on any given subject further compounds this problem. Faced with this situation, healthcare decision makers may fail to notice, choose to ignore or simply misinterpret important research, resulting in people being denied effective therapies or receiving treatments that are ineffective or even harmful.
While expert opinion and observation are important, depending solely on these sources of knowledge can have detrimental consequences. Through the conscientious use of the best available evidence in concert with experience we can make better decisions about health care, thus extending the quality and quantity of life and respecting the use of limited resources.
Systematic reviews (a.k.a. research synthesis or meta-analysis) seek to promote better use of evidence from research through a systematic approach to finding, appraising and summarizing studies. Lauded for their objectivity and ability to limit bias and increase precision of estimates, systematic reviews are often considered the "gold standard" for reliable evidence and a vital decision-making tool. The Council's Evidence for Action briefs are based on systematic reviews of the best available evidence about the effects of interventions and policies aimed at improving health. |
|
|
Share
