Evidence Hub inclusion criteria
In order to be included on the Financial Wellbeing Evidence Hub, all content must:
- Relate to people’s financial wellbeing (including capability and behaviour)
- Make a positive contribution to the Evidence Hub, given what is on there already
- Be based on research
- Provide a full description of the research methods used, as well as where, when, and who did the research
- Describe the context in which the research was conducted, including any significant cultural, social, or political factors that are likely to have influenced the results
- Describe the research participants and how the sample was chosen
- Evidence all conclusions and justify any recommendations
- Acknowledge uncertainty and limitations
Otherwise, the type of content that can be found in evaluation, insight and review studies is as follows:
All evaluation reports relate to a specific programme that is intended to improve financial wellbeing. They provide a full and clear description of the programme including the activities involved, how they are delivered, who the programme is intended to help, and what outcomes it is meant to achieve. Within this:
Programme theory describes how a programme is intended to work and provides some rationale for the design with reference to existing evidence. It describes the intended sequence from activities through to longer term outcomes, acknowledging any important assumptions along the way. This could include a logic model or theory of change diagram;
Measured outcomes reports evidence of changes that occurred over the course of a programme with reference to the programme’s intended effects. It demonstrates efforts to minimize bias and to accurately represent the experiences of programme participants;
Causality demonstrates measured outcomes and makes a compelling case for attributing these effects to the programme itself. It acknowledges and rules out plausible alternative explanations for the evaluation results;
Process evaluation reports evidence of how the programme was delivered and/or how or why it produced change in practice. It includes quantitative information on programme implementation, such as how many sessions were delivered and how many people took part. It refers to programme theory in order to comment on the extent to which the programme went according to plan;
Value for money reports evidence of the costs required to deliver programme activities and/or achieve results relative to alternatives. It provides clear descriptions of the alternatives being compared and justifies the choice of comparators. It explains how costs and benefits have been determined, including the time periods over which they have been calculated and any assumptions involved.
Insight reports include at least some original data. They may also include findings from prior research. They do not focus on particular programmes, but instead explore topics like the need for services in different areas, financial attitudes, or the risk factors that contribute to financial difficulties. Within this:
Quantitative reports include findings based on methods that produce numeric data, such as surveys and existing datasets;
Qualitative reports include findings based on methods like in-depth interviews, focus groups and observation.
An individual report can be tagged as both quantitative and qualitative if applicable.
Reviews collate existing knowledge on a particular topic or theme. They explain the focus and purpose for the review, with reference to other studies, and are based on secondary research to identify relevant content. They include information on the sources that were used in the search, the kinds of content that were eligible for inclusion and key features of included studies. Within this:
Literature reviews cover a sample of relevant studies on a topic with a summary of findings;
Systematic reviews cover all relevant studies on a topic with a summary of findings. They are conducted methodically, carefully recorded, and fully described so that they can be replicated in future. They may include a meta-analysis of data across multiple studies.