School of Social Policy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
Syst Rev. 2020 Aug 27;9(1):199. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01448-w.
Philanthropists, charity leaders and policy-makers have increasingly recognised that the process of giving resources needs to be grounded in evidence-sometimes referred to as 'evidence-based' or 'data-driven' philanthropy. Yet few philanthropists practise evidence-based philanthropy, and some contend that there is insufficient evidence on which to base their funding decisions. This review aims to identify factors that promote or limit the use of evidence by philanthropists and to rigorously evaluate all existing research on this issue.
To identify, synthesise, and evaluate appropriate and rigorous research, examining factors which act as barriers to or facilitators of the use of evidence by philanthropists.
This review was conducted according to Cochrane standards and reported following PRISMA guidelines. The review protocol was pre-registered ( dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.wbsfane ). We searched 10 interdisciplinary databases using a highly sensitive search strategy, developed in consultation with an information scientist. We also contacted experts and searched a range of websites. Studies were included if they comprised primary research into or systematic reviews of the barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by philanthropists or funders when determining which charities (including health charities or programmes) to fund. All studies were appraised for quality, and the results synthesised using thematic analysis.
Of 686 studies identified through database and hand searching, nine met inclusion criteria. The thematic summary identified three main barriers to philanthropists or funders using evidence: (1) inadequate knowledge transfer and difficulties accessing evidence, (2) challenges in understanding the evidence and (3) insufficient resources. The three key factors that expedite the use of evidence are (1) improved knowledge transfer and more accessible/relevant high-quality information, (2) access to professional advisors and networks and (3) broadening the definition of what counts as credible evidence along with standardisation of reporting.
The authors of this review found several compelling arguments for promoting the use of evidence by philanthropists to inform their philanthropy. If evidence-based philanthropy is to flourish, then they recommed the following actions: Firstly, philanthropy should be underpinned by a commitment to 'do no harm'. Secondly, the definition of evidence should be expanded and funding decisions based upon consideration of 'all available evidence'. Finally, there should be more investment in synthesizing evidence and in the infrastructure for knowledge transfer.
慈善家、慈善领袖和政策制定者越来越认识到，资源分配的过程需要以证据为基础——有时也被称为“循证”或“数据驱动”的慈善。然而，很少有慈善家实践循证慈善，有些人认为没有足够的证据来支持他们的资助决策。本综述旨在确定促进或限制慈善家使用证据的因素，并严格评估所有关于这一问题的现有研究。
确定、综合和评估适当和严格的研究，审查慈善家使用证据的障碍和促进因素。
本综述按照 Cochrane 标准进行，并按照 PRISMA 指南进行报告。综述方案预先注册（dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.wbsfane）。我们使用高度敏感的搜索策略在 10 个跨学科数据库中进行了搜索，该策略是与信息科学家协商制定的。我们还联系了专家并搜索了一系列网站。如果研究是关于慈善家或资助者在确定资助哪些慈善机构（包括健康慈善机构或项目）时使用证据的障碍和促进因素的原始研究或系统综述，则纳入研究。所有研究都进行了质量评估，并使用主题分析对结果进行综合。
通过数据库和手工搜索共确定了 686 项研究，其中 9 项符合纳入标准。主题总结确定了慈善家或资助者使用证据的三个主要障碍：（1）知识转移不足和难以获取证据，（2）理解证据的挑战，（3）资源不足。促进慈善家使用证据的三个关键因素是：（1）改善知识转移和提供更多可访问/相关的高质量信息，（2）获得专业顾问和网络的支持，（3）扩大可信证据的定义，并标准化报告。
本综述的作者发现了一些有说服力的论点，支持促进慈善家使用证据来指导他们的慈善事业。如果循证慈善要蓬勃发展，那么他们建议采取以下行动：首先，慈善事业应该以“不造成伤害”为基础。其次，应该扩大证据的定义，并根据“所有可用证据”来考虑资助决策。最后，应该增加对证据综合和知识转移基础设施的投资。
