51
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Towards a Systematic Understanding of How to Institutionally Design Scientific Advisory Committees: A Conceptual Framework and Introduction to a Special Journal Issue

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Scientifically‐derived insights are often held as requirements for defensible policy choices. Scientific advisory committees (SACs) figure prominently in this landscape, often with the promise of bringing scientific evidence to decision‐makers. Yet, there is sparse and scattered knowledge about what institutional features influence the operations and effectiveness of SACs, how these design choices influence subsequent decision‐making, and the lessons learned from their application. The consequences of these knowledge gaps are that SACs may not be functioning as effectively as possible. The articles in this special journal issue of Global Challenges bring together insights from experts across several disciplines, all of whom are committed to improving SACs' effectiveness worldwide. The aim of the special issue is to inform future SAC design in order to help maximize the application of high‐quality scientific research for the decisions of policymakers, practitioners, and the public alike. In addition to providing an overview of the special issue and a summary of each article within it, this introductory essay presents a definition of SACs and a conceptual framework for how different institutional features and contextual factors affect three proximal determinants of SACs' effectiveness, namely the quality of advice offered, the relevance of that advice, and its legitimacy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Balancing credibility, relevance and legitimacy: A critical assessment of trade-offs in science-policy interfaces

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Conceptualizing credibility, relevance and legitimacy for evaluating the effectiveness of science–policy interfaces: Challenges and opportunities

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              When does consensus exist in expert panels?

              Increasingly, expert panels are being used to determine whether or not a consensus exists about criteria of good practice. It is, however, unclear how sensitive the panels' conclusions are to changes in the definitions of agreement and disagreement used. To explore this, two expert panels were established to assess the appropriate indications for cholecystectomy. Analyses of the results showed that the level of agreement depended on whether or not the views of outliers were included or eliminated. Exclusion of outliers increased the proportion of appropriate indications from about 40 per cent to 60 per cent. In contrast, the proportion of indications felt to be inappropriate was dependent on how strict the definitions employed were. Given that the principal purpose of expert panels is to inform quality assurance activities, the higher levels of agreement and disagreement achieved by eliminating outliers and employing more relaxed definitions are to be favoured.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                patrick.fafard@uottawa.ca
                Journal
                Global Chall
                Global Chall
                10.1002/(ISSN)2056-6646
                GCH2
                Global Challenges (Hoboken, Nj)
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2056-6646
                27 September 2018
                September 2018
                : 2
                : 9 , Optimizing Scientific Advisory Committees ( doiID: 10.1002/gch2.v2.9 )
                : 1800020
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Global Strategy Lab York University University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada
                [ 2 ] Dahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research Faculty of Health and Osgoode Hall Law School York University Toronto Ontario Canada
                [ 3 ] Division for Health Services Norwegian Institute of Public Health Oslo Norway
                [ 4 ] Graduate School of Public & International Affairs University of Ottawa Ottawa Ontario Canada
                Author notes
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2064-3711
                Article
                GCH2201800020
                10.1002/gch2.201800020
                6175373
                30345073
                af6b9dcb-a402-4878-aa3b-b89597de4ffa
                © 2018 The Authors. Published by WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 01 March 2018
                : 08 August 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 6, Tables: 3, Pages: 8, Words: 4515
                Funding
                Funded by: Research Council of Norway's Global Health & Vaccination Programme
                Award ID: #234608
                Funded by: Canadian Institutes of Health Research
                Funded by: Ontario Government's Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science
                Categories
                Essay
                Essay
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                gch2201800020
                September 2018
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:version=5.5.0 mode:remove_FC converted:08.10.2018

                committees,effectiveness of scientific advisory committees,evidence‐based decision‐making,scientific advisory,scientific advisory boards

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content65

                Cited by5

                Most referenced authors133