Our Methodology
Our Approach
Evidence-based practice means making decisions informed by the best available research, combined with practitioner expertise and contextual factors. We bridge the gap between academic research and day-to-day organisational practice by finding, appraising, and translating the evidence so you don't have to.
The Evidence Rating System
Every article carries an evidence rating so you can quickly gauge how much confidence to place in the findings. Here are the four levels:
Strong
Multiple high-quality meta-analyses with consistent findings, large combined samples, and meaningful effect sizes. High confidence that the finding is reliable.
Moderate
At least one meta-analysis or several well-designed primary studies with generally consistent results. Good confidence, though some limitations exist.
Emerging
Limited meta-analytic evidence or mixed findings across studies. The direction of findings is suggestive but requires caution in application.
Sparse
Few studies, mostly primary research with small samples or methodological concerns. Treat as preliminary — worth knowing but not yet a firm basis for action.
How We Rate Evidence
Our ratings are based on five assessment criteria, adapted from established frameworks like GRADE:
1. Study Design
Is the evidence based on meta-analyses, systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies? Higher-level designs receive more weight.
2. Methodological Quality
Were the studies well-conducted? We assess sample sizes, control groups, measurement validity, and risk of bias using frameworks like AMSTAR-2.
3. Consistency
Do findings replicate across different studies, populations, and contexts? We examine heterogeneity statistics (I-squared) and sensitivity analyses.
4. Directness
How directly does the evidence apply to the specific practice question? Studies conducted in relevant organisational settings score higher.
5. Effect Size & Precision
How large and precise are the effects? We look at Cohen's d, confidence intervals, and practical significance — not just statistical significance.
Our Process
- 1Identify the highest-quality meta-analyses and systematic reviews on the topic
- 2Extract key data: effect sizes, sample sizes, moderators, and boundary conditions
- 3Appraise study quality using structured assessment criteria
- 4Assign an overall evidence rating (Strong / Moderate / Emerging / Sparse)
- 5Draft the article, translating findings into practitioner-friendly guidance
- 6Expert review for accuracy, clarity, and balanced interpretation
Intervention Levels
Each action recommendation is classified using the IGLO framework (Nielsen et al., 2017), which identifies four levels at which workplace interventions can operate. This helps you target the right level of the system when translating evidence into practice.
Individual
Actions that individual employees can take independently — changes to personal behaviour, mindset, or skill development. Examples: adopting a new safety practice, seeking feedback, adjusting workload management.
Group
Actions that operate at the team or work-group level — peer norms, team processes, and collective practices. Examples: team debriefs after incidents, peer mentoring programmes, shared decision-making protocols.
Leader
Actions that require leadership behaviour change — how managers and supervisors create conditions for their teams. Examples: conducting safety conversations, providing contingent recognition, modelling vulnerability.
Organisation
Actions that require organisational-level decisions — policies, systems, structures, and resource allocation. Examples: redesigning reporting systems, restructuring training programmes, changing performance metrics.
Each action is also tagged with an action type — Diagnose (assess current state), Design (plan an intervention), Develop (build capability), or Deliver (implement and sustain). Together, the intervention level and action type help you identify not just what to do, but who needs to act and what kind of action is required.
Transparency
We publish our methodology so you can evaluate our assessments. If you disagree with a rating, we want to hear from you. Evidence-based practice thrives on open scrutiny and constructive challenge.