AbstractBackgroundAn estimated two billion people do not have sufficient access to nutritious food, and nearly half are dependent on small‐scale and subsistence farming. Projections show that the global population is not on track to reach the Sustainable Development Goals. With this in mind, development actors are increasingly seeking to better integrate rural farmers into agricultural markets. This synthesis of the literature can help to inform policy decisions to improve outcomes for smallholder farmers in low‐ and middle‐income countries, and to enable the realization of the Sustainable Development Goals. This work is the most comprehensive and up‐to‐date review synthesizing evidence from 262 interventions.ObjectivesThe purpose of this systematic review is to appraise and synthesize evidence of the effects of five types of interventions facilitating farmers' access to output markets in low‐ and middle‐income countries. We examine how these effects vary across contexts and subgroups. We also identify evidence on program costs and evidence gaps in the literature.Search MethodsThe search of included studies was based on nine major databases/search engines and 25 institutional websites, using a set of English search terms. We also conducted forward and backward citation tracking of literature, published a public call for papers, and contacted key experts.Selection CriteriaWe included studies on the effects of five types of output market access interventions, focusing on participants residing in low‐ and middle‐income countries: (1) Farm‐to‐market transport infrastructure interventions; (2) Access to output market information interventions; (3) New marketplaces or alternative marketing opportunities interventions; (4) Contract farming interventions; (5) Improved storage infrastructure and technologies interventions. We included published and unpublished studies from 2000 onwards, with experimental and quasi‐experimental study designs focusing on relevant outcomes.Data Collection and AnalysisWe screened 52,366 studies, identifying a total of 439 papers representing 289 unique studies on the effects of 262 interventions in 53 countries. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were completed by two independent reviewers.Main ResultsAll five types of output market access interventions resulted in small‐to‐moderate positive effects on almost all measures of market participation, agricultural production, and welfare outcomes. These improvements occurred through a reduction in transaction costs, adoption of improved practices, greater farm investment, access to higher prices for farmers, greater volume sold, and increased farm income. Effects vary by intervention type. However, the body of evidence is comprised of a large share of included studies with a high risk of bias. Few studies have information on the cost of interventions, and there are gaps in the available evidence.Authors' ConclusionsOutput market access interventions are effective in reducing transaction costs and addressing market failures, thereby leading to higher income levels. Evidence of effects on food security and nutrition is sparse and has not provided conclusive findings. We also found that multi‐component interventions are not necessarily more effective than single component interventions. The specific needs and dynamics of each context should inform the choice of the intervention and approach. Investments in additional research with low risk of selection bias and confounding effects will improve the evidence base, especially for outcomes that constitute gaps in the literature. For example, the effects on quality of agricultural products and group participation are under‐researched, and we did not find any included studies focusing on North Africa or the Middle East. Collecting and reporting information on interventions' cost‐effectiveness will help decision‐makers to prioritize limited resources.

Although child-centred care is increasingly referred to within the nursing literature, a clear definition of child-centred care and clarity around the concept is yet to be achieved. The objectives of this review were to examine the following: (1) What constitutes the concept of child-centred care in healthcare? (2) How has the concept of child-centred care developed? (3) What is the applicability of child-centred care and what are its limitations? (4) How does the concept of child-centred care benefit and inform children’s healthcare? In total, 2984 papers were imported for screening, and, following the removal of duplicates and screening, 21 papers were included in the scoping review. The findings suggest that child-centred care is an emerging, ambiguous poorly defined concept; no clear consensus exists about what constitutes child-centred care. Although it seems antithetical to argue against child-centred care, little robust evidence was identified that demonstrates the impact and benefit of child-centred care. If child-centred care is to be a sustainable, convincing model to guide practice and compete with other models of care, it needs to establish robust evidence of its effectiveness, the impact on children and their families, as well as the wider impacts on the healthcare system.

Abstract Systematic maps are used to comprehensively gather and describe the literature on a topic, which is often defined by policy and practice relevance and stakeholder input, identifying trends and gaps in research. Bibliometric methods elucidate the connections between publications, for example, providing information about collaboration in research communities. Research weaving combines these approaches to produce a comprehensive view of research activity on a well‐defined research area. In this paper, we conduct and describe a bibliometric analysis on a previously published systematic map on the functional roles of buffer strips in agricultural fields. Among other findings, the original systematic map found a paucity of studies addressing multiple functional roles and a huge variation in terminology related to buffer strips. We used research weaving to deepen our understanding of these findings and shed light on collaboration within and among the research communities contributing knowledge to this field. Of the 1019 papers originally included in the systematic map, 930 were identified in Lens.org and used for subsequent analyses. Co‐authorship and bibliographic coupling networks identified distinct research communities, defined by geography, subdiscipline and characteristic usage of buffer strip terminology. Topic modelling provided further information about these subcommunities and aligned with manually extracted information about the studies' focus on functional roles, indicating potential utility for screening of records in large systematic maps. Practical Implication: We demonstrate that research weaving methods add insights in support of and in addition to the original systematic map. We provide a methodological approach and discuss limitations related to applying bibliometric analyses to a previously published systematic map. We demonstrate the feasibility of this approach and its ability to enhance and enrich the findings gained from conventional systematic mapping techniques.

This is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of research on mental health outcomes of abortion. Does abortion increase the risk of adverse mental health outcomes? That is the central question for this review. Our review aims to inform policy and practice by locating, critically appraising, and synthesizing empirical evidence on associations between abortion and subsequent mental health outcomes. Given the controversies surrounding this topic and the complex social, political, legal, and ideological contexts in which research and reviews on abortion are conducted, it is especially important to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis with comprehensive, rigorous, unbiased, and transparent methods. We will include a variety of study designs to enhance understanding of studies' methodological strengths and weaknesses and to identify potential explanations for conflicting results. We will follow open science principles, providing access to our methods, measures, and results, and making data available for re-analysis.

The search methods used in systematic reviews provide the foundation for establishing the body of literature from which conclusions are drawn and recommendations made. Searches should aim to be comprehensive and reporting of search methods should be transparent and reproducible. Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews strive to adhere to the best methodological guidance available for this type of searching. The current work aims to provide an assessment of the conduct and reporting of searches in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews. Our objectives were to examine how searches are currently conducted in Campbell systematic reviews, how search strategies, search methods and search reporting adhere to the Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR) and PRISMA standards, and identify emerging or novel methods used in searching in Campbell systematic reviews. We also investigated the role of information specialists in Campbell systematic reviews. We handsearched the Campbell Systematic Reviews journal tables of contents from January 2017 to March 2024. We included all systematic reviews published since 2017. We excluded other types of evidence synthesis (e.g., evidence and gap maps), updates to systematic reviews when search methods were not changed from the original pre-2017 review, and systematic reviews that did not conduct their own original searches. We developed a data extraction form in part based on the conduct and reporting items in MECCIR and PRISMA. In addition, we extracted information about the general quality of searches based on the use of Boolean operators, keywords, database syntax and subject headings. Data extraction included information about reporting of sources searched, some aspects of search quality, the use and reporting of supplementary search methods, reporting of the search strategy, the involvement of information specialists, date of the most recent search, and citation of the Campbell search methods guidance. Items were rated as fully, partially or not conducted or reported. We cross-walked our data extraction items to the 2019 MECCIR standards and 2020 PRISMA guidelines and provide descriptive analyses of the conduct and reporting of searches in Campbell systematic reviews, indicating level of adherence to standards where applicable. We included 111 Campbell systematic reviews across all coordinating groups published since 2017 up to the search date. Almost all (98%) included reviews searched at least two relevant databases and all reported the databases searched. All reviews searched grey literature and most (82%) provided a full list of grey literature sources. Detailed information about databases such as platform and date range coverage was lacking in 16% and 77% of the reviews, respectively. In terms of search strategies, most used Boolean operators, search syntax and phrase searching correctly, but subject headings in databases with controlled vocabulary were used in only about half of the reviews. Most reviews reported at least one full database search strategy (90%), with 63% providing full search strategies for all databases. Most reviews conducted some supplementary searching, most commonly searching the references of included studies, whereas handsearching of journals and forward citation searching were less commonly reported (51% and 62%, respectively). Twenty-nine percent of reviews involved an information specialist co-author and about 45% did not mention the involvement of any information specialist. When information specialists were co-authors, there was a concomitant increase in adherence to many reporting and conduct standards and guidelines, including reporting website URLs, reporting methods for forward citation searching, using database syntax correctly and using subject headings. No longitudinal trends in adherence to conducting and reporting standards were found and the Campbell search methods guidance published in 2017 was cited in only twelve reviews. We also found a median time lag of 20 months between the most recent search and the publication date. In general, the included Campbell systematic reviews searched a wide range of bibliographic databases and grey literature, and conducted at least some supplementary searching such as searching references of included studies or contacting experts. Reporting of mandatory standards was variable with some frequently unreported (e.g., website URLs and database date ranges) and others well reported in most reviews. For example, database search strategies were reported in detail in most reviews. For grey literature, source names were well reported but search strategies were less so. The findings will be used to identify opportunities for advancing current practices in Campbell reviews through updated guidance, peer review processes and author training and support.

This guide outlines general issues in searching for studies; describes the main sources of potential studies; and discusses how to plan the search process, design, and carry out search strategies, manage references found during the search process and document and report the search process.

AbstractBackgroundValue chain interventions have become widespread throughout the international development sector over the last 20 years, and there is a need to evaluate their effectiveness in improving women's welfare across multiple dimensions. Agricultural value chains are influenced by socio‐cultural norms and gender dynamics that have an impact on the distribution of resources, benefits, and access to opportunities. While women play a critical role in agriculture, they are generally confined to the least‐valued parts of the value chain with the lowest economic returns, depending on the local, social and institutional contexts.ObjectivesThe review assesses the effectiveness of approaches, strategies and interventions focused on women's engagement in agricultural value chains that lead to women's economic empowerment in low‐ and middle‐income countries. It explores the contextual barriers and facilitators that determine women's participation in value chains and ultimately impact their effectiveness.Search MethodsWe searched completed and on‐going studies from Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection (Social Sciences Citation Index [SSCI], Science Citation Index Expanded [SCI‐EXPANDED], Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science [CPCI‐S], Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Social Science & Humanities [CPCI‐SSH], and Emerging Sources Citation Index [ESCI]), International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, EconLit, Business Source Premier, APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane, Database of Systematic Reviews, CAB Abstracts and Sociological Abstracts. We also searched relevant websites such as Consortium of International Agricultural Research Centers (CGIAR); the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD); AgriProFocus; the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF); Donor Committee for Enterprise Development; the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO); the International Labour Organisation (ILO); the Netherlands Development Organisation; USAID; the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation; the International Food Policy Research Institute; World Agroforestry; the International Livestock Research Institute; the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office; the British Library for Development Studies (BLDS); AGRIS; the IMMANA grant database; the 3ie impact evaluation database; Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA); The Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J‐PAL); the World Bank IEG evaluations; the USAID Development Data Library; Experience Clearinghouse; the proceedings of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy conference; the proceedings of the Centre for the Study of African Economies (CSAE) Conference; the proceedings of the North East Universities Development Consortium (NEUDC) Conference; and the World Bank Economic Review. The database search was conducted in March 2022, and the website search was completed in August 2022.Selection CriteriaThe review includes value chain interventions evaluating the economic empowerment outcomes. The review includes effectiveness studies (experimental and non‐experimental studies with a comparison group) and process evaluations.Data Collection and AnalysisTwo review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, critically appraised the studies, and synthesised findings.ResultsWe found that value chain interventions are successful in improving the economic conditions of their intended beneficiaries. The interventions were found to improve women's economic outcomes such as income, assets holdings, productivity, and savings, but these effects were small in size and limited by low confidence in methodological quality. The meta‐analysis suggests that this occurs more via the acquisition of skills and improved inputs, rather than through improvement in access to profitable markets. The qualitative evidence on interventions points to the persistence of cultural barriers and other constraints. Those interventions implemented in Sub‐Saharan Africa and South Asia are consistently more successful for all outcomes considered, although there are few studies conducted in other areas of the world.ConclusionsThe review concludes that value chain interventions empower women, but perhaps to a lesser extent than expected. Economic empowerment does not immediately translate into empowerment within families and communities. Interventions should either moderate their expectations of empowerment goals, or they should be implemented in a way that ensures higher rates of participation among women and the acquisition of greater decision‐making power.

The phrase "just talking" is ubiquitously used by emerging adults to describe amorous interactions. Despite the prevalence of this phrase in public discourse, little is known about what just talking means and whether it is simply popular slang for longstanding relationship patterns or marks a shift in romantic and sexual norms and behavior. We surveyed undergraduate students at a mid-sized university about just talking, then conducted focus groups to better contextualize the phenomenon. Participant responses were coded inductively and interpreted in the historical context of American courtship, contemporary social norms on campus, the developmental tasks of emerging adulthood, and shifting patterns of everyday interaction brought about by smartphone technology. We propose that just talking is a veiled courtship behavior that denies the intimacy it builds thereby meeting emerging adults' needs for emotional intimacy in a social environment where speaking frankly about emotional connections and seeking stable romantic partnerships are stigmatized.

The role of macrophages in regulating the tumor microenvironment has spurned the exponential generation of nanoparticle targeting technologies. With the large amount of literature and the speed at which it is generated it is difficult to remain current with the most up-to-date literature. In this study we performed a topic modeling analysis of 854 abstracts of peer-reviewed literature for the most common usages of nanoparticle targeting of tumor associated macrophages (TAMs) in solid tumors. The data spans 20 years of literature, providing a broad perspective of the nanoparticle strategies. Our topic model found 6 distinct topics: Immune and TAMs, Nanoparticles, Imaging, Gene Delivery and Exosomes, Vaccines, and Multi-modal Therapies. We also found distinct nanoparticle usage, tumor types, and therapeutic trends across these topics. Moreover, we established that the topic model could be used to assign new papers into the existing topics, thereby creating a Living Review. This type of “birds-eye-view” analysis provides a useful assessment tool for exploring new and emerging themes within a large field.

Abstract This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: The primary objective of this review is to understand as well as evaluate what approaches, strategies or interventions focused on women's engagement in agricultural value chains and markets that have led to women's economic empowerment in low‐and‐middle‐income countries. The secondary objective of this review is to examine in which contexts are these approaches effective (or ineffective)? What are the contextual barriers and facilitators, determining the participation of women in, and benefits from, engagement in the value chain in low‐and middle‐income countries programme effectiveness. Finally, this review aims to refine the theory of change that describes how value chain interventions lead to women's economic empowerment using evidence drawn from both rigorous quantitative impact evaluation studies and qualitative studies.

This scoping review investigates rigour from phenomenological and phenomenographic orientations and their appropriate fit into the discourses identified by researchers. The scoping review addresses the following central research question: Do phenomenological and phenomenographic studies in published library science research share the same criteria of rigour? Library and information science (LIS) multi-disciplinary bibliographic databases were searched. Basic keyword searching was conducted in databases and conference proceedings were hand-searched to ensure that no articles were missed because of indexing lags. The review found that there are 18 explicitly stated phenomenological orientations and six phenomenographic orientations across LIS. Specific frameworks were applied to each method while strategies from positivism were used interchangeably. There must be a balance between generalizability, reliability, and validity, rather than an over-reliance on one of these pillars. Furthermore, LIS researchers must familiarize themselves with different phenomenological and phenomenographic orientations to apply their methodologies appropriately.

The production of evidence syntheses, such as systematic and scoping reviews, is vital to supporting evidence-based policy- and decision-making, and to inform work toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The conduct of high-quality evidence synthesis requires specialized knowledge and methods. Many initiatives have been implemented to increase capacity for evidence synthesis production globally, including targeted regional efforts in Africa. The current study uses bibliometric methods to analyze trends in evidence synthesis production by Africa-based authors across disciplines, providing a baseline for future research and evaluation of capacity-building efforts. We find that evidence synthesis production in Africa has grown rapidly in the past ten years, particularly for systematic reviews in the health and medical disciplines. Other evidence synthesis methods, mainly scoping reviews, are also applied and non-health disciplines are increasingly using evidence synthesis methods to assess current knowledge. We also discuss interesting country- and discipline-specific trends.

Background: Financial incentives for chief executive officers (CEOs) are thought to motivate them to lead their company toward achieving important business objectives. Based on the Rousseau et al. (2019) protocol, this systematic review assesses the predictive effects of CEO incentives on certain business outcomes. Objectives: This review addresses whether CEO financial incentives predict: (1) firm financial performance and (2) financial restatement due to misreporting. Search methods: We searched nine research databases for published peer-reviewed literature (to July 23-26, 2021 and an attenuated search from those dates to July 27-31, 2023) and thirteen professional association websites for non-published gray literature (to August 2021). We also hand-searched selected relevant journals. Selection criteria: We reviewed peer-reviewed and unpublished studies available in English since 1980. Eligible studies regarding our first question assessed CEO financial incentives (1) 1 year or more before the measurement of outcomes, (2) controlled for pre-incentive firm performance or market conditions, and (3) analyzed CEO financial incentives as predictors of firm outcomes. Eligible studies regarding our second question assessed whether financial restatement had occurred and analyzed effects of CEO incentives on this outcome. Data collection and analysis: We extracted standardized regression coefficients for each effect or converted unstandardized regressions to standardized. Analyses were conducted using STATA. All studies were assessed to have moderate risk of bias. Main results: For our first question, 20 studies (15,398 firms) met our criteria for meta-analysis of effects. Bonuses, the most commonly studied incentive, had a small positive effect on next year's accounting performance metric Return on Assets (ROA, 0.046 [k=7, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.014, 0.078]). The bonus effect in the market-related metric of Stock Returns (-0.026 [k=5, 95% CI=-0.119, 0.067]) fell within a CI including 0, as did its effect on another market-related metric, Market-to-Book value (Tobin's Q, 0.028 [k=3, 95% CI=-0.024, 0.08]). We conclude that Bonuses show no predictive effect on the following year's market-related metrics but do affect ROA. Stock Options had no effect on next year's ROA (0.027 [k=5, 0.95% CI=0.000, 0.052]), nor on Market-to-Book Value (Tobin's Q, 0.097 [k=5, 95% CI=-0.027, 0.220]) or Stock Return (0.042 [k=6, -0.033, 0.117]), indicating no predictive effect for Stock Options on either accounting or market-related performance. We sought but found too few studies to report on effects of incentives on other financial outcomes or for lags greater than 1 year. For our second question, three studies (n=2044 firms) met our criteria. The overall effect size for CEO Incentives on Restatement (-0.09 [k=3, 95% CI=-0.363, 0.184) fell within a CI including zero. We conclude that current evidence does not support a direct relationship between CEO financial incentives and Restatement. Authors' conclusions: This review affirms a small effect of CEO Bonuses, but no effect of Stock Options, on the accounting performance metric ROA. In contrast, neither Bonuses nor Stock Options predict a firm's market-related metrics. CEO incentives also are unrelated to Financial Restatement. Despite widespread use of CEO financial incentives, lack of evidence supporting their use, beyond the bonus-ROA effect we identify, suggests caution regarding current CEO financial incentive practice and greater consideration of alternative arrangements to enhance firm performance.

The role of macrophages in regulating the tumor microenvironment has spurned the exponential generation of nanoparticle targeting technologies. With the large amount of literature and the speed at which it is generated it is difficult to remain current with the most up-to-date literature. In this study we performed a topic modeling analysis of the most common usages of nanoparticle targeting of macrophages in solid tumors. The data spans 20 years of literature, providing an extensive meta-analysis of the nanoparticle strategies. Our topic model found 6 distinct topics: Immune and TAMs, Nanoparticles, Imaging, Gene Delivery and Exosomes, Vaccines, and Multi-modal Therapies. We also found distinct nanoparticle usage, tumor types, and therapeutic trends across these topics. Moreover, we established that the topic model could be used to assign new papers into the existing topics, thereby creating a Living Review. This type of meta-analysis provides a useful assessment tool for aggregating data about a large field.

In April 2020, members of the Campbell Collaboration Methods Group and Campbell leadership met to discuss options for creating flexible training opportunities for Campbell reviewers. It was not a coincidence that this meeting occurred at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. But in truth, conversations about how Campbell might increase the effectiveness and reach of Campbell training started at least a decade earlier. Training in systematic review methods has always been important to Campbell—we have a Methods sub-group that is focused on training, and training opportunities have been part of every Campbell annual meeting. In addition, Campbell typically offers one or two standalone workshops sessions a year to outside groups seeking training in systematic review methods. We have never had a good way of evaluating the effectiveness of these one-off training experiences, and in addition, we worried about the cost and access issues associated with in-person training. Further, we could not help but notice that when Campbell training sessions are accessible to a broad audience, they tend to be very popular. As an example of this latter point, David Wilson's presentation on effect sizes and basic issues in meta-analysis, which was part of a training workshop at the Campbell Colloquium in 2011, has been viewed over 49,000 times (Wilson, 2011) as of December 2022. As we investigated options for addressing questions regarding training effectiveness, resource efficiency, and access equity, we searched for platforms that would allow us to host training materials in an online environment, that could be accessed at little or no cost to users, and that have tools for assessing learning. Ultimately, we chose to work with the Open Learning Initiative (OLI) at Carnegie Mellon University (https://oli.cmu.edu/). Over the course of the next 30 months, a team of seven individuals with expertise in systematic reviews and meta-analysis, led by Jeff Valentine, Julia Littell, and Sarah Young, plus Greg Bunyea, a learning engineer from OLI, devoted thousands of hours to create a course titled: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: A Campbell Collaboration online course (Valentine et al., 2022). We were ably assisted in this work by Mark Englebert, Jennifer Hanratty, Terri Pigott, and Zahra Premji. The remainder of this essay is devoted to describing the scope of the course, its primary audience, its organization, and the principles we adopted during development. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: A Campbell Collaboration online course is aimed at Campbell reviewers and others who want to learn how to find, assess, and synthesize the results of relevant studies to inform policy, practice, and future research or in other words, people who want to learn how to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analysis. We assume that learners will have prior graduate training in research methodology and statistics. We designed the course to be suitable for both classroom and independent learning and view it as the equivalent to a textbook or an introductory, graduate-level course in systematic reviewing. It should also work well as an adjunct to in-person workshop training. The content on systematic review methods is relevant to systematic reviews regardless of the nature of the specific research hypotheses being investigated, but the content addressing synthesis methods is focused on the synthesis of quantitative data (meta-analysis). Introduction Problem formulation Searching the literature Screening potentially eligible studies Data extraction and coding Introduction to effect sizes Introduction to meta-analysis Completing systematic reviews and exploring other synthesis methods Units are the primary organizing framework, and each Unit contains multiple learning modules. For example, Unit 3 Searching the Literature has modules on the importance of working with an information specialist, how to identify sources to search, how to design database searches, and how to search the grey literature, among others. Most modules have multiple pages that serve to break the material into smaller chunks. For example, the module on Designing Database Searches has pages on combining terms and concepts, using subject headings, and on the role of database limiters, among others. In alignment with our design principles, described below, most pages begin with specific learning objectives and end with formative assessment exercises. Student performance on these formative assessment exercises provides critical information about how well the materials are leading students to successfully meet the learning objectives. This feedback will support continual improvement of the course by allowing us to identify where we have been more and less effective. When we set out to design the course, we committed to a set of principles informed by research and theory regarding how humans learn. We used an outcome-driven curriculum design method known as “backwards design” (Richards, 2013; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This method involves beginning by articulating learning objectives, then determining how we will assess if the learning objectives have been met, and only then creating content. By starting with learning outcomes and intentionally designing curriculum around those outcomes, the course content and assessments are aligned in helping learners achieve the learning goals. We also employ principles of active learning by providing opportunities for practice and formative assessments to test knowledge throughout the course (Koedinger et al., 2015). The practice and assessment activities include meaningful feedback, and in some cases hints, that challenges the learner to think critically about their answers. All assessments are linked in the OLI system to learning outcomes and skills. Thus, a well-designed formative assessment can tell us something about how students are understanding or misunderstanding material, which we can then address through iterations on the course content. We announced the availability of a pilot version of this course (https://oli.cmu.edu/courses/systematic-reviews-and-meta-analysis/) at the What Works Global Summit in October 2022. We plan on releasing the full course in the early part of 2023. After launch, we will continue to make data-driven improvements in course content and assessments. In the future, we intend to create summative assessments for self-paced and classroom use, and we will explore the feasibility of expanding the course into a certificate program.

Development agencies and international donors' efforts are increasingly focusing on better integrating poor and remote farmers into agricultural markets to address the chronic issues of rural poverty and hunger in low- and middle-income countries. Using systematic methods for information retrieval, critical appraisal and evidence synthesis, this research aims to examine evidence on the effects of five focal types of agricultural market access interventions: (i) farm-to-market transport infrastructure interventions; (ii) output market information interventions; (iii) initiatives creating new marketplaces and alternative marketing opportunities; (iv) contract farming initiatives; (v) interventions improving storage infrastructure. In this review, we will study evidence of the magnitude and direction of intervention effects on agricultural, socio-economic, and food and nutrition security outcomes. We will examine evidence of the distribution of reported effects across different contexts, interventions and sub-groups of the population (e.g., according to sex, socio-economic status, farm size, etc.). We will also report on included studies' risk of bias and on what evidence is available on intervention costs, or their cost-effectiveness. This protocol outlines this review's planned methods and the criteria for selecting and including studies in its analysis.

Academic searching is integral to research activities: (1) searching to retrieve specific information, (2) to expand our knowledge iteratively, (3) and to collate a representative and unbiased selection of the literature. Rigorous searching methods are vital for reliable, repeatable and unbiased searches needed for these second and third forms of searches (exploratory and systematic searching, respectively) that form a core part of evidence syntheses. Despite the broad awareness of the importance of transparency in reporting search activities in evidence syntheses, the importance of searching has been highlighted only recently and has been the explicit focus of reporting guidance (PRISMA-S). Ensuring bibliographic searches are reported in a way that is transparent enough to allow for full repeatability or evaluation is challenging for a number of reasons. Here, we detail these reasons and provide for the first time a standardised data structure for transparent and comprehensive reporting of search histories. This data structure was produced by a group of international experts in informatics and library sciences. We explain how the data structure was produced and describe its components in detail. We also demonstrate its practical applicability in tools designed to support literature review authors and explain how it can help to improve interoperability across tools used to manage literature reviews. We call on the research community and developers of reference and review management tools to embrace the data structure to facilitate adequate reporting of academic searching in an effort to raise the standard of evidence syntheses globally.

Vertical integration (VI) is considered a strategic management plan whereby an organisation has ownership of its supply chain. It is utilised as a method for managing the economic needs and approaches of an organisation and ensuring that a product is readily available for use. From a healthcare perspective, this pertains to the coordination of services or levels of care and allows for adaptation to changing circumstances. This study reviews existing literature on VI in a healthcare setting to assess feasibility and effectiveness of this proposed solution. A theoretical literature review was performed utilising conceptual categorisation to understand how VI may benefit community care organisations, using the needs of a local organisation as an example. Seventeen articles were included from a range of databases and grey literature with findings categorised according to two research questions. The findings suggest that for VI to be effective and efficient it is important to consider the following themes: market failure, barriers to entry, productive capabilities and specific healthcare issues . In conclusion, from a management and economic perspective, when markets are not functioning efficiently and are in disequilibrium, VI may provide an appropriate avenue to address these problems, in particular for community care organisations.