From 30 March 2012, this clearinghouse will be amalgamated into Child Family Community Australia (CFCA Information Exchange). For more information see the CFCA Information Exchange FAQ

What works in service delivery? Evaluating the research

Which policies, programs, and practices are the most effective when delivering services to children and families within disadvantaged Australian communities?

In order to confidently answer this question, it is necessary to access the research evidence. Such research comes in different forms, some of which are more reliable than others when making decisions:

  • Research papers or reports generally focus on a specific topic or question and report the results of an original or primary research study. The results of such a study constitute a building block for an evidence base. However, it is not good practice to base a policy or program on the results of a single study.   
  • Literature reviews are articles that aim to review the current knowledge of a particular topic. They are secondary research sources, in that they do not report on the results of original experimental work. Literature reviews can sometimes present a one-sided view of a topic or be used to support an argument. As such, it is not good practice to base a policy or program on the results of a single literature review.
  • Systematic reviews are similar to literature reviews in that they are secondary sources that review the current knowledge of a particular topic. However, a systematic review aims to provide an exploratory and objective account of the current research, rather than use research to support an argument. Individual research papers or reports are rigorously searched for, and then graded for quality using a scoring system. Any studies that do not reach a quality threshold are excluded from the review. The methods used to perform the systematic review are explicitly stated so that other researchers can replicate the process.
  • ‘Systematic plus’ reviews are similar to systematic reviews in that they objectively explore the current knowledge of a particular topic. However, a ‘systematic plus’ review also includes a section for research or data that may be useful or insightful, but that does not meet the quality threshold of standard systematic reviews (e.g., certain types of qualitative research, opinion pieces of experts in the field).
  • Meta-analyses: incorporate many of the elements of a systematic review, but go further by using specialised statistical techniques to synthesise the results of numerous studies. Thus, a meta-analysis is an original piece of research that uses previously published research as its data. A meta-analysis can indicate whether specific policies or practices work, as well as how much of an effect they have.

Systematic reviews, ‘systematic plus’ reviews and meta-analyses are the most effective ways to identify what works in the child and family welfare sector. The following list provides a number of links to websites and organisations that specialise in the production and/or distribution of these forms of research.

It should be noted that not all subject areas receive the research attention that they deserve, and so may be lacking systematic reviews or meta-analyses. The absence of evidence supporting specific policies or programs is not evidence of their ineffectiveness. Rather, it more likely points to a lack of research in the specific area.