'How-To:' Scoping Review?

Scoping reviews are a type of evidence synthesis that aims to identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue, within or across a defined context or contexts. Scoping reviews can contribute to clinical practice guideline development, policy making, reduce research waste by eliminating duplication of research effort, and be a precursor to a systematic review. This paper aims to provide a brief introduction of how to conduct and report scoping reviews, their role and value of within the evidence synthesis ecosystem, the differences and similarities between these reviews and other types of evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews, mapping reviews, evidence and gap maps and overviews and how to overcome common challenges often associated in the conduct, reporting and dissemination of scoping reviews.

Interventions promoting resilience through climate smart agricultural practices for women farmers: A systematic review.

Background: Climate change poses a significant threat to agricultural production worldwide, with developing countries being particularly vulnerable to its negative impacts. Agriculture, which is a crucial factor in ensuring food security and livelihoods, is particularly vulnerable to changes in climate patterns, such as increased temperatures, drought, and extreme weather events. One approach to addressing these challenges is by promoting the adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices among farmers. CSA combines traditional agricultural practices with innovative techniques and technologies to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change. infrastructure. By adopting CSA practices, farmers can enhance their resilience to climate variability and improve their productivity. Objectives: This review examines the effectiveness of interventions promoting CSA to enhance farmers' knowledge of the benefits of CSA approaches, subsequent adoption of CSA, and disadoption of harmful agricultural practices in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Search Methods: We searched 39 academic and online databases, websites, and repositories and screened over 19,000 experimental and quasi-experimental publications to identify studies promoting CSA practices to women farmers. We conducted a citation tracking process on included studies and contacted experts to ensure a thorough search. Selection Criteria: The review focused on studies that included interventions promoting climate-smart agricultural approaches. Using EPPI Reviewer 4, two review authors independently screened the impact evaluation using a standardized screening tool. Data Collection and Analysis: Information about participant characteristics, intervention characteristics, control conditions, research design, sample size, bias risk, outcomes, and results were gathered. Data collection and quantitative analysis were conducted using standard Campbell Collaboration methods. Main Results: Eight impact evaluations were found (two randomized controlled trials) evaluating the effects of CSA practices on farmer's knowledge gains of the benefits of CSA practices and subsequent adoption. Knowledge dissemination approaches such as Farmer Field Schools and weather and climate information services were found to positively impact farmers' knowledge and adoption of specific CSA practices. However, the evidence supporting this claim is uncertain as a high risk of bias was assessed for five of the eight included studies. However, we found no effects on the disadoption of harmful practices such as pesticide overuse. Authors' Conclusions: The evidence base for studies promoting climate-smart agricultural approaches (CSA) to farmers in LMICs is small, and there is a lack of studies reporting sex-disaggregated data and studies explicitly targeting women farmers. The review suggests that knowledge dissemination techniques are significantly effective in improving CSA knowledge and adoption, including integrated pest management techniques and their benefits, adoption of climate-resilient rice seed varieties (STRVs), and use of botanical pesticides by farmers. More and better confidence studies are needed to inform policy and programming, including those that look at a wider range of interventions, including changing norms, values, and institutional arrangements.

Automation tools to support undertaking scoping reviews.

OBJECTIVE: This paper describes several automation tools and software that can be considered during evidence synthesis projects and provides guidance for their integration in the conduct of scoping reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The guidance presented in this work is adapted from the results of a scoping review and consultations with the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group. RESULTS: This paper describes several reliable, validated automation tools and software that can be used to enhance the conduct of scoping reviews. Developments in the automation of systematic reviews, and more recently scoping reviews, are continuously evolving. We detail several helpful tools in order of the key steps recommended by the JBI's methodological guidance for undertaking scoping reviews including team establishment, protocol development, searching, de-duplication, screening titles and abstracts, data extraction, data charting, and report writing. While we include several reliable tools and software that can be used for the automation of scoping reviews, there are some limitations to the tools mentioned. For example, some are available in English only and their lack of integration with other tools results in limited interoperability. CONCLUSION: This paper highlighted several useful automation tools and software programs to use in undertaking each step of a scoping review. This guidance has the potential to inform collaborative efforts aiming at the development of evidence informed, integrated automation tools and software packages for enhancing the conduct of high-quality scoping reviews.

Advancing the methodology of mapping reviews: A scoping review.

This scoping review aims to identify and systematically review published mapping reviews to assess their commonality and heterogeneity and determine whether additional efforts should be made to standardise methodology and reporting. The following databases were searched; Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Campbell collaboration database, Social Science Abstracts, Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Following a pilot-test on a random sample of 20 citations included within title and abstracts, two team members independently completed all screening. Ten articles were piloted at full-text screening, and then each citation was reviewed independently by two team members. Discrepancies at both stages were resolved through discussion. Following a pilot-test on a random sample of five relevant full-text articles, one team member abstracted all the relevant data. Uncertainties in the data abstraction were resolved by another team member. A total of 335 articles were eligible for this scoping review and subsequently included. There was an increasing growth in the number of published mapping reviews over the years from 5 in 2010 to 73 in 2021. Moreover, there was a significant variability in reporting the included mapping reviews including their research question, priori protocol, methodology, data synthesis and reporting. This work has further highlighted the gaps in evidence synthesis methodologies. Further guidance developed by evidence synthesis organisations, such as JBI and Campbell, has the potential to clarify challenges experienced by researchers, given the magnitude of mapping reviews published every year.

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map.

Background: Road Traffic injuries (RTI) are among the top ten leading causes of death in the world resulting in 1.35 million deaths every year, about 93% of which occur in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Despite several global resolutions to reduce traffic injuries, they have continued to grow in many countries. Many high-income countries have successfully reduced RTI by using a public health approach and implementing evidence-based interventions. As many LMICs develop their highway infrastructure, adopting a similar scientific approach towards road safety is crucial. The evidence also needs to be evaluated to assess external validity because measures that have worked in high-income countries may not translate equally well to other contexts. An evidence gap map for RTI is the first step towards understanding what evidence is available, from where, and the key gaps in knowledge. Objectives: The objective of this evidence gap map (EGM) is to identify existing evidence from all effectiveness studies and systematic reviews related to road safety interventions. In addition, the EGM identifies gaps in evidence where new primary studies and systematic reviews could add value. This will help direct future research and discussions based on systematic evidence towards the approaches and interventions which are most effective in the road safety sector. This could enable the generation of evidence for informing policy at global, regional or national levels. Search Methods: The EGM includes systematic reviews and impact evaluations assessing the effect of interventions for RTI reported in academic databases, organization websites, and grey literature sources. The studies were searched up to December 2019. Selection Criteria: The interventions were divided into five broad categories: (a) human factors (e.g., enforcement or road user education), (b) road design, infrastructure and traffic control, (c) legal and institutional framework, (d) post-crash pre-hospital care, and (e) vehicle factors (except car design for occupant protection) and protective devices. Included studies reported two primary outcomes: fatal crashes and non-fatal injury crashes; and four intermediate outcomes: change in use of seat belts, change in use of helmets, change in speed, and change in alcohol/drug use. Studies were excluded if they did not report injury or fatality as one of the outcomes. Data Collection and Analysis: The EGM is presented in the form of a matrix with two primary dimensions: interventions (rows) and outcomes (columns). Additional dimensions are country income groups, region, quality level for systematic reviews, type of study design used (e.g., case-control), type of road user studied (e.g., pedestrian, cyclists), age groups, and road type. The EGM is available online where the matrix of interventions and outcomes can be filtered by one or more dimensions. The webpage includes a bibliography of the selected studies and titles and abstracts available for preview. Quality appraisal for systematic reviews was conducted using a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews, AMSTAR 2. Main Results: The EGM identified 1859 studies of which 322 were systematic reviews, 7 were protocol studies and 1530 were impact evaluations. Some studies included more than one intervention, outcome, study method, or study region. The studies were distributed among intervention categories as: human factors (n = 771), road design, infrastructure and traffic control (n = 661), legal and institutional framework (n = 424), post-crash pre-hospital care (n = 118) and vehicle factors and protective devices (n = 111). Fatal crashes as outcomes were reported in 1414 records and non-fatal injury crashes in 1252 records. Among the four intermediate outcomes, speed was most commonly reported (n = 298) followed by alcohol (n = 206), use of seatbelts (n = 167), and use of helmets (n = 66). Ninety-six percent of the studies were reported from high-income countries (HIC), 4.5% from upper-middle-income countries, and only 1.4% from lower-middle and low-income countries. There were 25 systematic reviews of high quality, 4 of moderate quality, and 293 of low quality. Authors' Conclusions: The EGM shows that the distribution of available road safety evidence is skewed across the world. A vast majority of the literature is from HICs. In contrast, only a small fraction of the literature reports on the many LMICs that are fast expanding their road infrastructure, experiencing rapid changes in traffic patterns, and witnessing growth in road injuries. This bias in literature explains why many interventions that are of high importance in the context of LMICs remain poorly studied. Besides, many interventions that have been tested only in HICs may not work equally effectively in LMICs. Another important finding was that a large majority of systematic reviews are of low quality. The scarcity of evidence on many important interventions and lack of good quality evidence-synthesis have significant implications for future road safety research and practice in LMICs. The EGM presented here will help identify priority areas for researchers, while directing practitioners and policy makers towards proven interventions.

PROTOCOL: Value chain interventions for improving women's economic empowerment: A mixed-method systematic review.

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.

Effectiveness of interventions for improving social inclusion outcomes for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

Background: People with disabilities-more than a billion people worldwide-are frequently excluded from social and political life, and often experience stigmatising attitudes and behaviours from people without disabilities. This stigma, coupled with inaccessible environments and systems and institutional barriers (e.g., lack of inclusive legislation), may result in discrimination against people with disabilities (and their families) to the degree that they are not able to enjoy their rights on an equal basis with others. Objectives: This review examines the effectiveness of interventions for improving social inclusion outcomes (acquisition of skills for social inclusion, broad-based social inclusion, and improved relationships) for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Search Methods: We searched academic and online databases, carried out citation tracking of included studies, and contacted experts to ensure our search was as comprehensive as possible. We also ran the searches with search terms specific to social inclusion review using Open Alex in EPPI reviewer. Selection Criteria: We included all studies which reported on impact evaluations of interventions to improve social inclusion outcomes for people with disabilities in LMIC. Data Collection and Analysis: We used review management software EPPI Reviewer to screen the search results. Two review authors independently extracted the data from each study report, including for the confidence in study findings appraisal. Data and information were extracted regarding available characteristics of participants, intervention characteristics and control conditions, research design, sample size, risk of bias and outcomes, and results. Random-effects inverse variance weighted meta-analytic methods were used to synthesise standardised mean differences for the outcomes. Main Results: We identified 37 experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Studies were conducted in 16 countries, with the majority of the included studies (n = 13) from South Asia and nine each from East Asia, the Pacific, the Middle East, and North Africa. Most studies targeted children with disabilities (n = 23), and 12 targeted adults with disabilities. Most focused on people with intellectual disabilities (n = 20) and psychosocial disabilities (n = 13). Regarding intervention content, most (n = 17) of the included programmes aimed to improve the social and communication skills of people with disabilities through social skills training programmes. Ten studies aimed at providing personal assistance and support and evaluated the effects of a parent training programme on the interactive skills of parents of children and their children with disabilities. We calculated effect sizes from experimental and quasi-experimental studies for outcomes on skills for social inclusion, relationships of people with disabilities with family and community members, and broad-based social inclusion among people with disabilities. A meta-analysis of 16 studies indicates an overall positive, statistically significant and large effect of the interventions for skills for social inclusion with standardised mean difference (SMD) = 0.87, confidence interval (CI) = 0.57 to 1.16, k = 26, I 2 = 77%, p < 0.001). For relationships across 12 studies, we find a positive but moderate effect (SMD = 0.61, CI = 0.41 to 0.80, k = 15, I 2 = 64%, p < 0.01). As for the overall effect on broad-based social inclusion, we find the average effect size was large, and there was significant dispersion across studies (SMD = 0.72, CI = 0.33 to 1.11, k = 2, I 2 = 93%, p < 0.01). Despite the significant and large effects estimated by the studies, some limitations must be noted. Although there was a consensus on the direction of the effects, the studies presented considerable heterogeneity in the size of the effects. A majority (n = 27) of studies were assessed to be of low confidence related to methodological limitations, so the findings must be interpreted with caution. Tests for publication bias show that the effect sizes of social skills (p < 0.01) and social inclusion (p = 0.01) are all likely to be inflated by the existence of the publication bias. Authors' Conclusions: The review's findings suggest that various interventions to improve the social inclusion of people with disabilities have a significant positive effect. Interventions such as social and communication training and personal assistance led to significant improvement in the social behaviour and social skills of people with disabilities. Studies targeting broad-based social inclusion showed a large and significant positive effect. A moderate effect was reported from interventions designed to improve relationships between people with disabilities and their families and communities. However, the findings of this review must be interpreted cautiously, given the low confidence in study methods, severe heterogeneity and significant publication bias. The available evidence focused primarily on individual-level barriers such as interventions for improving social or communications skills of people with disabilities and not the systemic drivers of exclusions such as addressing societal barriers to inclusion, such as stigma reduction, and interventions to strengthen legislation, infrastructure, and institutions.

Prioritising Cochrane reviews to be updated with health equity focus.

BACKGROUND: The prioritisation of updating published systematic reviews of interventions is vital to prevent research waste and ensure relevance to stakeholders. The consideration of health equity in reviews is also important to ensure interventions will not exacerbate the existing inequities of the disadvantaged if universally implemented. This study aimed to pilot a priority setting exercise based on systematic reviews of interventions published in the Cochrane Library, to identify and prioritise reviews to be updated with a focus on health equity. METHODS: We conducted a priority setting exercise with a group of 13 international stakeholders. We identified Cochrane reviews of interventions that showed a reduction in mortality, had at least one Summary of Findings table and that focused on one of 42 conditions with a high global burden of disease from the 2019 WHO Global Burden of Disease report. This included 21 conditions used as indicators of success of the United Nations Universal Health Coverage in attaining the Sustainable Development Goals. Stakeholders prioritised reviews that were relevant to disadvantaged populations, or to characteristics of potential disadvantage within the general population. RESULTS: After searching for Cochrane reviews of interventions within 42 conditions, we identified 359 reviews that assessed mortality and included at least one Summary of Findings table. These pertained to 29 of the 42 conditions; 13 priority conditions had no reviews with the outcome mortality. Reducing the list to only reviews showing a clinically important reduction in mortality left 33 reviews. Stakeholders ranked these reviews in order of priority to be updated with a focus on health equity. CONCLUSIONS: This project developed and implemented a methodology to set priorities for updating systematic reviews spanning multiple health topics with a health equity focus. It prioritised reviews that reduce overall mortality, are relevant to disadvantaged populations, and focus on conditions with a high global burden of disease. This approach to the prioritisation of systematic reviews of interventions that reduce mortality provides a template that can be extended to reducing morbidity, and the combination of mortality and morbidity as represented in Disability-Adjusted Life Years and Quality-Adjusted Life Years.

PROTOCOL: An evidence and gap map of studies of implementation issues for interventions for those affected by and at risk of homelessness in high-income countries.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The proposed evidence and gap map will present relevant process evaluations and other studies of barriers and facilitators, both qualitative and quantitative, for eligible homelessness interventions to highlight the issues arising in the implementation of these interventions. Specifically, the objectives of the map are to: (i) develop a clear taxonomy of interventions and implementation issues (e.g., barriers and facilitators-factors which works as barriers to hinder successful implementation of policies and programmes and factors which facilitate the intervention and therefore support its implementation) related to homelessness in high-income countries; (ii) map available systematic reviews and primary studies of the implementation issues of interventions for those experiencing homelessness and those at risk of homelessness, with an overview provided in a summary report; (iii) provide a searchable database of included studies accessible to research users via CHI website.

Evidence and gap map report: Social and Behavior Change Communication (SBCC) interventions for strengthening HIV prevention and research among adolescent girls and young women (AGYW) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Background: Adolescent girls and young women (AGYW), aged 15-24 years, are disproportionately affected by HIV and other sexual and reproductive health (SRH) risks due to varying social, cultural, and economic factors that affect their choices and shape their knowledge, understanding, and practices with regard to their health. Socio-Behavioral Change Communication (SBCC) interventions targeted at strengthening the capabilities of individuals and their networks have supported the demand and uptake of prevention services and participation in biomedical research. However, despite growing global recognition of the domain, high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of SBCC remains scattered. This evidence and gap map (EGM) report characterizes the evidence base on SBCC interventions for strengthening HIV Prevention and Research among AGYW in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), identifying evidence gaps and outlining the scope of future research and program design. Objectives: The objectives of the proposed EGM are to: (a) identify and map existing EGMs in the use of diverse SBCC strategies to strengthen the adoption of HIV prevention measures and participation in research among AGYW in LMICs and (b) identify areas where more interventions and evidence are needed to inform the design of future SBCC strategies and programs for AGYW engagement in HIV prevention and research. Methods: This EGM is based on a comprehensive search of systematic reviews and impact evaluations corresponding to a range of interventions and outcomes-aimed at engaging AGYW in HIV prevention and research - that were published in LMICs from January 2000 to April 2021. Based on guidance for producing a Campbell Collaboration EGM, the intervention and outcome framework was designed in consultation with a group of experts. These interventions were categorized across four broad intervention themes: mass-media, community-based, interpersonal, and Information Communication and Technology (ICT)/Digital Media-based interventions. They were further sub-categorized into 15 intervention categories. Included studies looked at 23 unique behavioral and health outcomes such as knowledge attitude and skills, relationship dynamics, household dynamics, health care services, and health outcomes and research engagement. The EGM is presented as a matrix in which the rows are intervention categories/sub-categories, and the columns are outcome domains/subdomains. Each cell is mapped to an intervention targeted at outcomes. Additional filters like region, country, study design, age group, funding agency, influencers, population group, publication status, study confidence, setting, and year of publication have been added. Selection Criteria: To be eligible, studies must have tested the effectiveness of SBCC interventions at engaging AGYW in LMICs in HIV prevention and research. The study sample must have consisted of AGYW between the ages of 15-24, as defined by UNAIDS. Both experimental (random assignment) and quasi-experimental studies that included a comparison group were eligible. Relevant outcomes included those at the individual, influencer, and institutional levels, along with those targeting research engagement and prevention-related outcomes. Results: This EGM comprises 415 impact evaluations and 43 systematic reviews. Interventions like peer-led interactions, counseling, and community dialogues were the most dominant intervention sub-types. Despite increased digital penetration use of media and technology-driven interventions are relatively less studied. Most of the interventions were delivered by peers, health care providers, and educators, largely in school-based settings, and in many cases are part of sex-education curricula. Evidence across geographies was mostly concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa (70%). Most measured outcomes focused on disease-related knowledge dissemination and enhancing awareness of available prevention options/strategies. These included messaging around consistent condom use, limiting sexual partners, routine testing, and awareness. Very few studies were able to include psychographic, social, and contextual factors influencing AGYW health behaviors and decisions, especially those measuring the impact of social and gender norms, relationship dynamics, and household dynamics-related outcomes. Outcomes related to engagement in the research were least studied. Conclusion: This EGM highlights that evidence is heavily concentrated within the awareness-intent spectrum of behavior change and gets lean for outcomes situated within the intent-action and the action-habit formation spectrum of the behavior change continuum. Most of the evidence was concentrated on increasing awareness, knowledge, and building risk perception around SRH domains, however, fewer studies focused on strengthening the agency and self-efficacy of individuals. Similarly, evidence on extrinsic factors-such as strengthening social and community norms, relationships, and household dynamics-that determine individual thought and action such as negotiation and life skills were also found to be less populated. Few studies explore the effectiveness of these interventions across diverse AGYW identities, like pregnant women and new mothers, sex workers, and people living with HIV, leading to limited understanding of the use of these interventions across multiple user segments including key influencers such as young men, partners, families, religious leaders, and community elders was relatively low. There is a need for better quality evidence that accounts for the diversity of experiences within these populations to understand what interventions work, for whom, and toward what outcome. Further, the evidence for use of digital and mass-media tools remains poorly populated. Given the increasing penetration of these tools and growing media literacy on one end, with widening gender-based gaps on the other, it is imperative to gather more high-quality evidence on their effectiveness. Timely evidence generation can help leverage these platforms appropriately and enable intervention designs that are responsive to changing communication ecologies of AGYW. SBCC can play a critical role in helping researchers meaningfully engage and collaborate with communities as equal stakeholders, however, this remains poorly evidenced and calls for investigation and investment. A full list of abbreviations and acronyms are available in Supporting Information: Appendix F.

Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different- the "Big Picture" review family.

Scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence and gap maps are evidence synthesis methodologies that address broad research questions, aiming to describe a bigger picture rather than address a specific question about intervention effectiveness. They are being increasingly used to support a range of purposes including guiding research priorities and decision making. There is however a confusing array of terminology used to describe these different approaches. In this commentary, we aim to describe where there are differences in terminology and where this equates to differences in meaning. We demonstrate the different theoretical routes that underpin these differences. We suggest ways in which the approaches of scoping and mapping reviews may differ in order to guide consistency in reporting and method. We propose that mapping and scoping reviews and evidence and gap maps have similarities that unite them as a group but also have unique differences. Understanding these similarities and differences is important for informing the development of methods used to undertake and report these types of evidence synthesis.

Recommendations for the extraction, analysis, and presentation of results in scoping reviews.

Scoping reviewers often face challenges in the extraction, analysis, and presentation of scoping review results. Using best-practice examples and drawing on the expertise of the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group and an editor of a journal that publishes scoping reviews, this paper expands on existing JBI scoping review guidance. The aim of this article is to clarify the process of extracting data from different sources of evidence; discuss what data should be extracted (and what should not); outline how to analyze extracted data, including an explanation of basic qualitative content analysis; and offer suggestions for the presentation of results in scoping reviews.

PROTOCOL: Social and behaviour change communication interventions for strengthening HIV prevention and research among adolescent girls and young women in low- and middle-income countries: An evidence and gap map.

Despite progress in several dimensions of the global HIV response, there seems to be a significant gender and age disparity. Numerous organizations consider it a top priority to accelerate HIV prevention programming among Adolescent Girls and Young Women (AGYW) as unequal gender norms, limited agency and voice, and reduced access to resources put them at higher HIV risk. Gender and age have also been identified as critical gaps within prevention research to ensure the development of biomedical interventions that are responsive to the biological and social needs of AGYW. Towards this, the objectives of the proposed evidence and gap map are to; identify and map existing evidence and gaps on the use of diverse Social and Behaviour Change Communication (SBCC) strategies to strengthen adoption of HIV prevention measures and participation in research among AGYW in LMICs; and, identify areas where more interventions and evidence are needed to inform the design of future SBCC strategies and programs for AGYW engagement in HIV prevention and research.

PROTOCOL: Interventions promoting resilience through climate-smart agricultural practices for women farmers: A systematic review.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: the primary objective of this review is to synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to promote climate-smart agriculture to enhance agricultural outcomes and resilience of women farmers in low-and-middle-income countries (research question 1). The secondary objective is to examine evidence along the causal pathway from access to interventions to promote climate-smart agriculture to empowering women so that they can use climate-smart technology. And such outcomes include knowledge sharing, agency improvement, resource access and decision-making (research question 2).

PROTOCOL: Gender transformative approaches in agriculture for women's empowerment: A systematic review.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the effectiveness of interventions with gender transformative approach (GTA) components in improving women's empowerment in low- and middle-income countries, and to curate evidence on the mechanisms through which GTA works to improve women's empowerment in agriculture.

Interventions to increase youth employment: An evidence and gap map.

Background: Globally, 13% of the youth are not in education, employment or training (NEET). Moreover, this persistent problem has been exacerbated by the shock of Covid-19 pandemic. More youth from disadvantaged backgrounds are likely unemployed than those from better off backgrounds. Thus, the need for increased use of evidence in the design and implementation of youth employment interventions to increase effectiveness and sustainability of interventions and outcomes. Evidence and gap maps (EGMs) can promote evidence-based decision making by guiding policy makers, development partners and researchers to areas with good bodies of evidence and those with little or no evidence. The scope of the Youth Employment EGM is global. The map covers all youth aged 15-35 years. The three broad intervention categories included in the EGM are: strengthening training and education systems, enhancing labour market and, transforming financial sector markets. There are five outcome categories: education and skills; entrepreneurship; employment; welfare and economic outcomes. The EGM contains impact evaluations of interventions implemented to increase youth employment and systematic reviews of such single studies, published or made available between 2000 and 2019. Objectives: The primary objective was to catalogue impact evaluations and systematic reviews on youth employment interventions to improve discoverability of evidence by decision makers, development patterners and researchers, so as to promote evidence-based decision making in programming and implementation of youth employment initiatives. Search Methods: Twenty databases and websites were searched using a validated search strategy. Additional searches included searching within 21 systematic reviews, snowballing 20 most recent studies and citation tracking of 10 most recent studies included in the EGM. Selection Criteria: The study selection criteria followed the PICOS approach of population, intervention, relevant comparison groups, outcomes and study design. Additional criterion is; study publication or availability period of between 2000 and 2021. Only impact evaluations and systematic reviews that included impact evaluations were selected. Data Collection and Analysis: A total of 14,511 studies were uploaded in EPPI Reviewer 4 software, upon which 399 were selected using the criteria provided above. Coding of data took place in EPPI Reviewer basing on predefined codes. The unit of analysis for the report is individual studies where every entry represents a combination of interventions and outcomes. Main Results: Overall, 399 studies (21 systematic reviews and 378 impact evaluations) are included in the EGM. Impact evaluations (n = 378) are much more than the systematic reviews (n = 21). Most impact evaluations are experimental studies (n = 177), followed by non-experimental matching (n = 167) and other regression designs (n = 35). Experimental studies were mostly conducted in both Lower-income countries and Lower Middle Income countries while non-experimental study designs are the most common in both High Income and Upper Middle Income countries. Most evidence is from low quality impact evaluations (71.2%) while majority of systematic reviews (71.4% of 21) are of medium and high quality rating. The area saturated with most evidence is the intervention category of 'training', while the underrepresented are three main intervention sub-categories: information services; decent work policies and; entrepreneurship promotion and financing. Older youth, youth in fragility, conflict and violence contexts, or humanitarian settings, or ethnic minorities or those with criminal backgrounds are least studied. Conclusions: The Youth Employment EGM identifies trends in evidence notably the following: Most evidence is from high-income countries, an indication of the relationship between a country's income status and research productivity.The most common study designs are experimental.Most of the evidence is of low quality. This finding serves to alert researchers, practitioners and policy makers that more rigorous work is needed to inform youth employment interventions. Blending of interventions is practiced. While this could be an indication that blended intervention could be offering better outcomes, this remains an area with a research gap.

Effectiveness of interventions for improving livelihood outcomes for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

Background: People with disabilities-more than a billion people worldwide-are frequently excluded from livelihood opportunities, including employment, social protection, and access to finance. Interventions are therefore needed to improve livelihood outcomes for people with disabilities, such as improving access to financial capital (e.g., social protection), human capital (e.g., health and education/training), social capital (e.g., support) or physical capital (e.g., accessible buildings). However, evidence is lacking as to which approaches should be promoted. Objectives: This review examines whether interventions for people with disabilities result in improved livelihood outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC): acquisition of skills for the workplace, access to the job market, employment in formal and informal sectors, income and earnings from work, access to financial services such as grants and loans, and/or access to social protection programmes. Search Methods: The search, up to date as of February 2020, comprised of: (1)an electronic search of databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CAB Global Health, ERIC, PubMED and CINAHL),(2)screening of all included studies in the instances where reviews were identified,(3)screening reference lists and citations of identified recent papers and reviews, and(4)An electronic search of a range of organisational websites and databases (including ILO, R4D, UNESCO and WHO) using the keyword search for unpublished grey to ensure maximum coverage of unpublished literature, and reduce the potential for publication bias. Selection Criteria: We included all studies which reported on impact evaluations of interventions to improve livelihood outcomes for people with disabilities in LMIC. Data Collection and Analysis: We used review management software EPPI Reviewer to screen the search results. A total of 10 studies were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. We searched for errata for our included publications and found none. Two review authors independently extracted the data from each study report, including for the confidence in study findings appraisal. Data and information were extracted regarding available characteristics of participants, intervention characteristics and control conditions, research design, sample size, risk of bias and outcomes, and results. We found that it was not possible to conduct a meta-analysis, and generate pooled results or compare effect sizes, given the diversity of designs, methodologies, measures, and rigour across studies in this area. As such, we presented out findings narratively. Main Results: Only one of the nine interventions targeted children with disabilities alone, and only two included a mix of age groups (children and adults with disabilities. Most of the interventions targeted adults with disabilities only. Most single impairment group interventions targeted people with physical impairments alone. The research designs of the studies included one randomised controlled trial, one quasi-randomised controlled trial (a randomised, posttest only study using propensity score matching (PSM), one case-control study with PSM, four uncontrolled before and after studies, and three posttest only studies. Our confidence in the overall findings is low to medium on the basis of our appraisal of the studies. Two studies scored medium using our assessment tool, with the remaining eight scoring low on one or more item. All the included studies reported positive impacts on livelihoods outcomes. However, outcomes varied substantially by study, as did the methods used to establish intervention impact, and the quality and reporting of findings. Authors' Conclusions: The findings of this review suggest that it may be possible for a variety of programming approaches to improve livelihood outcomes of people with disabilities in LMIC. However, given low confidence in study findings related to methodological limitations in all the included studies, positive findings must be interpreted with caution. Additional rigorous evaluations of livelihoods interventions for people with disabilities in LMIC are needed.

PROTOCOL: Effectiveness of interventions for improving educational outcomes for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review.

The objectives of this review are to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the nature of the interventions used to support education for people with disabilities? (2) What is the size and quality of the evidence base of the effectiveness of interventions to improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)? (3) What works to improve educational outcomes for people with disabilities in LMICs? (4) Which interventions appear most effective for different types of disability? (5) What are the barriers and facilitators to improving of educational outcomes for people with disabilities? Is there evidence of cumulative effects-that certain interventions are effective when done in combination with others, but are less or ineffective when done alone?