Background: Belgian Red Cross-Flanders is currently developing a guideline on First Aid and Aquatic Safety (FAAS) in fisher communities in Mozambique, whose economic dependency on the sea exposes them to its hazards. To ensure that this guideline meets the target population's demands, we aimed to formulate need-tailored research questions
Objective: To generate a set of research questions for an evidence-based FAAS training guideline.
Methods: We conducted focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and a quantitative survey in four coastal communities in Mozambique to assess the needs concerning first aid knowledge and water-related risk prevention. Additional research questions were identified by exploring relevant existing training manuals. Finally, a panel of African health, first aid, and aquatic rescue experts reviewed the research questions.
Results: Based on the information provided by 343 survey respondents, 11 key informants, and 129 participants in 14 focus group discussions, we identified points of attention (e.g. 47% of the survey respondents cannot swim) and constructed research questions on first aid and/or prevention of minor (e.g. cuts from sharp shells) and major (e.g. shipwrecking) risks. Two first aid manuals, one for fishermen and one for bathers, inspired additional research questions. A list of 28 research questions was discussed during an expert panel meeting and final questions were formulated.
Discussion: By combining primary and secondary information sources (emphasizing the specific needs of the target population) with content expert insight and in-house expertise in developing evidence-based guidelines, we developed an exhaustive list of research questions for a FAAS training guideline.

Background: "Living" evidence syntheses (i.e. continually updated, credible evidence syntheses such as living -evidence-based guidelines, -systematic reviews, -evidence briefs) have the potential to strengthen health systems by providing decision-makers with up to date, timely and reliable evidence syntheses to inform their decisions. However, there is no existing knowledge about when, why and how living evidence is used in policy decisions. By understanding the experiences of policymakers who have used living evidence, we can work towards optimising living evidence for policy.
Objective: To identify and understand mechanisms that promote the use of living evidence in health policy in Australia.
Methods: Online semi-structured interviews plus an online roundtable with policymakers in Australia, exploring their motivations and experiences with using LES, and factors that may influence their future use of LES. Findings were analysed using an applied thematic analysis approach.
Results: 22 policymakers participated and provided insights on five broad themes: varied understanding but consistent expectations of LES among policymakers; criteria for when to use LES for policy; key merits of using LES in health policy; perceived risks associated with LES; and considerations for future use of LES in health policy.
Discussion: This study demonstrated that LES have the potential to strengthen health systems by enabling the use of up to date evidence in policy decisions. By working in partnership, policymakers, knowledge users and evidence producers can further understand and optimise this approach to enable better use of living evidence in health policy.

Background
The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) has steered the development of an integrated method for developing the European guidelines and quality assurance (QA) schemes. This common methodology is applicable for the European Commission (EC) initiatives on breast (ECIBC), colorectal (ECICC), cervical (EC-CvC) and the upcoming initiatives on lung, prostate and gastric cancer. The QA schemes are the vehicle for guideline implementation, ensuring that healthcare services provide accessible and high-quality care.

Objective
To operationalise the QA scheme and quality indicator development in an integrated methodology with guideline development.

Methods
Building on the experience of ECIBC, conducted systematic reviews and contributions from a multidisciplinary groups of experts, a conceptual framework for QA developments is published describing the themes to be considered and the key elements of quality assurance. The framework has been implemented within ECICC and we present the detailed workflow.

Results
Based on the scope of the initiatives, a database of existing performance measures (PMs) is systematically extracted and complemented with critically appraised evidence. The Working Group details cancer care pathways to map and spatially visualise the PMs. A shortlist of candidate PMs is evaluated for scientific soundness, responsiveness, and feasibility to select the PMs for the QA scheme as requirements. The requirements are tested for feasibility across European cancer care services.

Discussion
The integrated method provides a systematic and transparent approach to developing a QA scheme, ensuring that it is evidence-based and aligned with guideline recommendations. The method has the potential to be applied to other healthcare areas.

Background
There now exists a multitude of approaches, methods, and methodologies for evidence synthesis to answer a broad array of questions. Enabling researchers to ensure that they are undertaking the “right” evidence synthesis approach is critical to evidence-based healthcare. We have developed the first living Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy to classify and categorise the multitude of evidence synthesis approaches.
Objective
Our objective was to develop an online, living taxonomy of evidence synthesis approaches to assist authors to identify an appropriate review type and provide structure to the field of evidence synthesis.
Methods
Our Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy is a global initiative with our advisory board consisting of over 150 evidence synthesis experts. The development of our taxonomy has been informed by several projects and methods, including a large scoping review of previous categorisation systems, consultation with our international advisory board, multiple online and in person workshops developing the taxonomy, and a round of consensus gathering surveys.
Results
The Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy categorises individual review approaches into evidence synthesis families. Within each family, individual review types and subtypes have been grouped and key characteristics identified. Each individual review type outlines methodological guidance, software, strengths/weaknesses, indications, reporting standards, risk of bias tools and other information relevant to systematic review authors.
Conclusions
Our taxonomy assists in harmonising evidence synthesis. The taxonomy will ensure and facilitate the translation of evidence from syntheses into policy and practice, and as a comprehensive resource, will be of benefit to many involved in knowledge generation and translation.

Background
Quality Assurance Schemes (QAS) systematically assess and improve healthcare quality. Quality indicators (QIs) are essential for evaluating colorectal cancer care, yet there is limited synthesis of external QAS. Aligning QAS with broader health decision-making frameworks is crucial for integrating evidence and contextual factors into policy and practice.
Objective
This systematic review aims to identify and describe external QAS for colorectal cancer (CRC) services and overall cancer care, their association with people-important outcomes, and the quality of supporting evidence.
Methods
Following Cochrane methods, PRISMA guidelines, and GRADE approach, we conducted systematic searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and grey literature sources, including reports from professional organisations and European health initiatives. Data extraction focused on study characteristics, QI definitions, methodological quality, responsiveness, and feasibility. Additionally, we collected information on QAS development, implementation, and scope. A thematic narrative synthesis classified QIs, with Summary of Findings (SoF) tables presenting classification, feasibility, and validation study outcomes.
Results
Six CRC-focused and eight general cancer care studies were included. For CRC the majority of QIs identified focused on the treatment phase (48%), followed by the screening phase (28%) and diagnosis (18%). For cancer care, the treatment phase accounted for the majority (69%), followed by follow-up and survivorship care (15%) and diagnosis (14%). Primary prevention and palliative care emerged as significant gaps.
Discussion
Standardised frameworks are crucial for improving quality in CRC and broader cancer care, ensuring alignment with measurable clinical outcomes. Addressing gaps in primary prevention, palliative care, and survivorship is essential for advancing people-cantered care.

Background
Clinical guidelines should promote high-value care when clinical net benefits justify costs.

Objectives
ACP developed a framework to standardize its approach to identifying, appraising, and considering economic evidence in the development of ACP clinical guidelines.

Methods
ACP considered 3 types of economic evidence: cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs), economic outcomes in randomized controlled rials, and resource utilization (intervention cost) data. ACP applied predefined willingness-to-pay thresholds to incremental cost per gained quality-adjusted life year and concluded value of the intervention. The potential role of economic evidence in developing a clinical recommendation was based on clinical net benefit, value of the intervention, and certainty of the economic evidence.

Results
ACP published the final framework in December 2024. In February 2025, ACP published a clinical guideline for the prevention of migraine headaches where relative net benefits of multiple available treatments did not clearly favor any treatment over another. We prioritized the interventions primarily based on economic evidence and patients’ values and preferences.

Discussion
Challenges in incorporating economic evidence included the absence of standardized methods for grading the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews of CEAs, sparse and poorly reported economic evidence, limited applicability of CEAs across different settings, among others. Future areas for development include assessment of heterogeneity in CEA conclusions and applicability to patients at various baseline risks for benefits and harms.