文章基本信息

标题：An Overview of Systematic Reviews to Inform the Institutional Design of Scientific Advisory Committees
本地全文：下载
作者：Asha Behdinan ; Elliot Gunn ; Prativa Baral 等
期刊名称：Global Challenges
印刷版ISSN：2056-6646
电子版ISSN：2056-6646
出版年度：2018
卷号：2
期号：9
DOI：10.1002/gch2.201800019
语种：English
出版社：John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
摘要：Abstract The current lack of synthesized evidence for informing the design of scientific advisory committees (SACs) is surprising in light of the widespread use of SACs throughout decision‐making processes. While existing research points to the importance of quality, relevance, and legitimacy for SACs' effectiveness, those planning SACs would benefit from efforts to systematically pinpoint optimal designs of these committees for maximal effectiveness. Search strategies are developed for seven electronic databases. Of the 1895 systematic reviews identified, six reviews meet the inclusion criteria: they report the results of systematic reviews that followed a clearly identified systematic methodology, examine factors related to the design of SACs, and involve processes in the natural or social sciences. These reviews collectively summarize 444 primary studies. Three of the six reviews look at the impacts of SAC size, two evaluate the influence of the committee's diversity, and half mention the importance of properly on‐boarding new members. The goal is to identify recurring themes to understand the specific institutional features that optimize the usefulness of SACs. In turn, this overview of systematic reviews aims to contribute to a growing body of literature on how SACs should be designed to maximize their effectiveness and helpfulness for decision‐making. A breakdown of the structural aspects of scientific advisory committees (SACs) is provided and current gaps in the social science literature on their design are highlighted. The study compiles lessons that can provide guidance on the formation of SACs to ensure that these groups have a greater chance of being effective.
关键词：advisory boardseffectiveness of scientific advisory committeesinstitutional designsscientific advisory committeessystematic review