Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35452462›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Presenting a comprehensive multi-scale evaluation framework for participatory modelling programs: A scoping review.

Grace Yeeun Lee, Ian Bernard Hickie, Jo-An Occhipinti, Yun Ju Christine Song, Adam Skinner, Salvador Camacho, Kenny Lawson, Adriane Martin Hilber, Louise Freebairn

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Grace Yeeun LeeBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7234-1870
Ian Bernard HickieBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Jo-An OcchipintiBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Yun Ju Christine SongBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Adam SkinnerBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Salvador CamachoSwiss Centre for International Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7681-7960
Kenny LawsonBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Adriane Martin HilberSwiss Centre for International Health, Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, Basel, Switzerland.
Louise FreebairnBrain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSystems modelling and simulation can improve understanding of complex systems to support decision making, better managing system challenges. Advances in technology have facilitated accessibility of modelling by diverse stakeholders, allowing them to engage with and contribute to the development of systems models (participatory modelling). However, despite its increasing applications across a range of disciplines, there is a growing need to improve evaluation efforts to effectively report on the quality, importance, and value of participatory modelling. This paper aims to identify and assess evaluation frameworks, criteria, and/or processes, as well as to synthesize the findings into a comprehensive multi-scale framework for participatory modelling programs. MATERIALS AND

methodsA scoping review approach was utilized, which involved a systematic literature search via Scopus in consultation with experts to identify and appraise records that described an evaluation framework, criteria, and/or process in the context of participatory modelling. This scoping review is registered with the Open Science Framework.

resultsThe review identified 11 studies, which varied in evaluation purposes, terminologies, levels of examination, and time points. The review of studies highlighted areas of overlap and opportunities for further development, which prompted the development of a comprehensive multi-scale evaluation framework to assess participatory modelling programs across disciplines and systems modelling methods. The framework consists of four categories (Feasibility, Value, Change/Action, Sustainability) with 30 evaluation criteria, broken down across project-, individual-, group- and system-level impacts. DISCUSSION &

conclusionThe presented novel framework brings together a significant knowledge base into a flexible, cross-sectoral evaluation effort that considers the whole participatory modelling process. Developed through the rigorous synthesis of multidisciplinary expertise from existing studies, the application of the framework can provide the opportunity to understand practical future implications such as which aspects are particularly important for policy decisions, community learning, and the ongoing improvement of participatory modelling methods.

Indexed as

Referral and ConsultationComputer SimulationForecasting

Identifiers

PMID35452462
PMCPMC9032404

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.