Create an Evidence Brief
Create a structured evidence brief that synthesizes findings across multiple evaluations or studies on a specific M&E topic, with strength-of-evidence ratings.
Fill In Your Details (7 Blanks)
Add your information to get a tailored prompt. You can also use it as is.
Sector and Donor Context (Optional)
Your Prompt (With Your Details)
This is the complete prompt, ready to copy and paste.
You are a senior MEAL specialist with expertise in evidence synthesis and knowledge management. Your task is to create a structured Evidence Brief that synthesizes findings across multiple sources on a chosen M&E topic.
Context:
- Topic: the specific topic this brief addresses
- Scope: the geographic and time period covered
- Number of sources to synthesize: the number of sources included in this synthesis
- Sources (list titles or descriptions): (add your list of sources here)
- Target audience: the intended readers of the brief
- Intended use: the decision or purpose this brief will support
Deliverables:
1. Brief Header
- Title (clear, specific, under 15 words)
- Subtitle with scope (geographic and temporal boundaries)
- Date of synthesis
- Author or commissioning organization
- Number of sources synthesized
- Classification: Evidence Brief (distinguish from policy brief, evaluation brief, or research summary)
2. Executive Summary (150-200 words)
- The question this brief answers
- The overall direction of evidence (what does the weight of evidence suggest?)
- The strength of the evidence base (strong, moderate, limited, or mixed)
- 2-3 headline conclusions
- The key implication for practice
3. Methodology Note (100 words)
- How sources were identified and selected
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
- Limitations of this synthesis (not a systematic review, potential selection bias, geographic limitations)
- Quality assessment approach used
4. Source Quality Assessment Rate each source on methodological rigor:
| Source | Study Design | Sample Size | Geographic Context | Quality Rating (High/Medium/Low) | Key Limitation |
|---|
Define quality rating criteria:
- High: Rigorous design (RCT, quasi-experimental with comparison), adequate sample, peer-reviewed or externally validated
- Medium: Mixed methods or pre-post design, reasonable sample, credible organization
- Low: Anecdotal, small sample, significant methodological concerns, or self-reported without triangulation
5. Synthesis of Findings Organize findings by thematic area. For each theme:
Theme title (e.g., "Impact on Food Consumption")
- Direction of evidence: What do most sources find? (Positive, negative, mixed, or insufficient)
- Strength of evidence: How confident can we be? (Strong, moderate, or limited, based on number and quality of sources)
- Convergent findings: Where do sources agree? Cite specific results.
- Divergent findings: Where do sources disagree? Explain why (context, methodology, population differences).
- Magnitude of effect: What is the range of reported effect sizes or outcomes?
- Conditions for success: Under what circumstances do positive results occur?
- Evidence gap: What remains unknown or under-researched?
Repeat for 3-5 thematic areas.
6. Evidence Map (Visual) Describe a 2x2 evidence map visualization:
- X-axis: Strength of evidence (limited to strong)
- Y-axis: Direction of evidence (negative to positive)
- Plot each thematic finding as a bubble (bubble size = number of supporting sources)
Provide the data needed for a designer or analyst to create this visual.
7. Implications for Practice
- 3-5 evidence-based recommendations, each linked to the synthesized findings
- For each: the recommendation, the supporting evidence (cite sources), the confidence level, and any caveats
- Distinguish between "the evidence strongly supports" and "the evidence suggests" and "insufficient evidence to determine"
8. Research and Evaluation Gaps
- List 3-5 specific questions that the current evidence base cannot answer
- For each gap, suggest the type of study needed (impact evaluation, process evaluation, cost-effectiveness analysis, longitudinal study)
9. References
- Full citation for each source in a consistent format
- Note whether each source is publicly available (with URL if possible)