Evidence gap mapping

Evidence Mapping involves conducting a search of published research, to map out what exists already. An Evidence Map doesn’t tell you what the research itself has found, it tells you what kinds of research have been done, with what groups, and looking for what outcomes. This is why maps are excellent for identifying where there are gaps - areas where not much research is done or where certain methods or approaches haven’t been used.

The evidence synthesis expert (Dr David Marshall) worked with the groups to ask questions and get clarifications. This was necessary because the questions the Teams asked didn’t fit neatly into existing research categories, which made the searches harder! David spoke with the Teams directly, and we used online polls when there were decisions needed a group consensus (for example about whether to focus on certain conditions).

To see the full map, use the arrows in each box to collapse each section. Then to see subsections, use the arrows in each section to expand and see the options. The coloured circles within each grey box represent the numbers of studies found for that particular study focus and finding. To see all of those studies, click on the grey box to open a catalogue of these studies. You can then use the options in the panel to tick/untick areas of interest, and the bar above to search and filter studies. You can also use this pop out to read the selected study, or to download the studies. 

• Traditional research is very much focused around diagnoses, to look at specific groups. The youth co-researchers were sceptical about using diagnoses, because people can be having problems but struggle to receive a diagnosis or might not fit into a category box in that way. Broader searches (for example “neurodivergence” rather than specifically “Autism”) found fewer studies, as less research took that broader view.

• Across all the Teams, the youth co-researchers wanted to see data gathered from young people themselves. This again led to fewer studies being found, as research quite often used ‘proxy’ views, such as collecting data from parents or teachers.

• As well as helping show gaps that indicate where young people were thinking differently, the youth co-researchers were also happy when they saw research on their question. They felt this meant there was a foundation they could build on, rather than starting from scratch

The evidence map revealed that the outcome of interest to the Team, i.e. accessing services, was rarely looked at. A small number of studies had looked at referrals to services, but the others looked at symptoms such as depression and anxiety scores rather than if and how young people tried to access help. The search was designed to look at whether research included or focused on young people from minority backgrounds, but found little reported on this group despite the studies in general being quite large. It was also quite hard to include this in the search terms, as there aren’t agreed terms used.

The evidence mapping showed very little research done on this area. There was little work done with individuals prior to diagnosis, and little work exploring their mental health needs. The Evidence Map also indicated that more research looked at the family experience than the experience of the individual themselves. There was also very little intervention for this group, meaning very little on what could be done to support people during this time.

For the Pets and Animal Companions group, a full evidence gap map was not produced. This is because the topic was challenging to perform because of what is called “noise” in the data. This means a search is returning lots of things that aren’t relevant. In this case, the search was getting muddied with findings about CAT and PET scans (a type of medical equipment), studies using animals (such as psychology studies using rats) and even studies that were given animal names as abbreviations! A few studies were found, but David cautioned they were low quality - this refers to studies not being very well designed or reported and so we’re not very confident about what they show. The search also showed most research was on dogs (with a few studies on horses and just one on cats). None of the studies looked at outcomes for the animal themselves, and the majority looked at short term assisted therapy rather than relationships over time

The evidence mapping showed a lot of primary research on the topic of interventions for self-harm in adolescents , but very little looked at coping and little work asking young people about how they coped. This inspired the group to look specifically at coping and what young people themselves would find helpful.