Evidence Synthesis in the Humanitarian Sector: A Humanitarian Evidence Programme Guidance Note

This Guidance Note discusses an approach to systematic evidence synthesis in the humanitarian field. Though its recommendations explicitly apply to the evidence synthesis outputs commissioned by the Humanitarian Evidence Programme, they also aim to facilitate a broader conversation about evidence synthesis in the humanitarian field.1 About the programme at a glance:

The Humanitarian Evidence Programme is a partnership between Oxfam and the Feinstein International Center at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University (FIC). The Programme aims to synthesize research in the humanitarian sector and communicate the findings to policymakers, humanitarian practitioners, and researchers, with the ultimate goal of improving humanitarian policy and practice. The programme is funded by UK aid from the UK government; however the views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies. The Humanitarian Evidence Programme evidence syntheses will take the form of reviews to synthesize evidence around what works and what does not work, as well as for whom and in which context. Reviews can also synthesize what we know and do not know around existing approaches, practices, and tools. Some of these evidence syntheses follow a strict, more classical systematic review approach, while others are practice reviews or other evidence synthesis outputs, depending on the nature of the question and the amount, quality, and type of data available to answer it. All of our evidence synthesis outputs strive to be transparent about which evidence they synthesize, clear about gaps and limits in the literature, and systematic in their mode of analysis of existing research. In this way, Humanitarian Evidence Programme reviews can identify gaps in existing research and knowledge, form conclusions with greater confidence than with individual studies, showcase disagreement and diversity among the literature, and highlight opportunities for further research.