We produce rigorous, independent research syntheses for governments, health systems, funders, and policy makers — transforming complex clinical, psychological, and policy literature into clear recommendations and decisions you can defend.
Evidence synthesis for clinical practice, public health programs, prevention strategies, and health system design — from individual treatment efficacy to population-level intervention impact.
View servicesRigorous synthesis across psychological interventions, psychiatric care, behavioural health, crisis services, and trauma-informed practice — from individual therapy to system-level reform.
View servicesTranslating the best available evidence into clear, defensible recommendations for policy reform, service design, and program investment — bridging research and real-world implementation.
Learn more"The gap between what research shows and what policy does is not a knowledge problem. It is a translation problem — and that is exactly what we solve."
Most evidence reviews produce outputs designed for academic audiences. We produce outputs designed for decision makers — synthesis that is rigorous enough to withstand methodological scrutiny and clear enough to shape a briefing, a funding strategy, or a program redesign.
Complex evidence translated into concise, structured briefs for ministers, executives, and commissioners — read quickly and acted on with confidence.
1–3 weeksSynthesis focused on how to implement — not just whether an intervention works, but how, for whom, and under what conditions in practice.
4–10 weeksEvidence spanning health, education, social policy, and community services — for reforms that do not fit neatly within a single department's evidence base.
6–14 weeksDedicated synthesis of distributional impacts, marginalised populations, and equity gaps — ensuring policy decisions account for those most affected.
4–8 weeksProtocol-driven, pre-registered reviews with reproducible search strategies and dual-reviewer screening. The gold standard for policy-critical and clinical questions.
⏱ 8–20 weeksAccelerated evidence synthesis for urgent policy and clinical decisions — structured screening and critical appraisal under real-world time pressure.
⏱ 2–6 weeksMapping the breadth and nature of evidence in a domain — identifying contested findings, evidence gaps, and priority areas for research investment or policy action.
⏱ 4–8 weeksStatistical pooling of clinical effect sizes — precise, interpretable estimates with confidence intervals and heterogeneity analysis for policy and clinical application.
⏱ 10–22 weeksSynthesis of existing systematic reviews for a high-level field overview — essential for complex policy areas with multiple intervention types and overlapping outcomes.
⏱ 6–14 weeksVisual mapping of where evidence exists and where it is absent — supporting funders and policy teams to prioritise research investment and identify knowledge gaps.
⏱ 4–10 weeksRapid horizon-scanning to assess whether a full review is warranted and to map the research landscape before committing to a larger synthesis.
⏱ 1–2 weeksDecision-ready synthesis for health executives, clinical leaders, and policy teams — clarity and actionability without sacrificing scientific rigour.
⏱ 1–3 weeksWe are fundamentally a human-led organisation. Every synthesis, analytical judgment, and interpretive conclusion is made by specialist researchers — never by algorithm. AI tools assist only in bounded screening logistics, always under close human governance.
"AI assistance means our researchers spend less time on logistics and more time on what only humans can do: judgment, nuance, and accountability."
— Evidence for Impact, Model Principle
AI tools assist literature screening logistics only. All synthesis, interpretation, and analytical judgment remains entirely human-led — ensuring full accountability and defensibility.
Domain-specialist clinicians, psychologists, policy experts, and academics contribute to every engagement — interdisciplinary depth without institutional overhead.
Pre-registered, reproducible search protocols ensure full transparency and methodological defensibility from the outset of every engagement.
Two independent reviewers screen and appraise every study — a foundational safeguard against bias that underpins credible evidence synthesis.
Quality assessment using internationally validated tools — appraising risk of bias, validity, and real-world applicability for each included study.
Findings synthesised with specialist academic input, translated into decision-ready outputs that are clear, actionable, equity-aware, and built to withstand scrutiny.
"In health and policy, weak evidence does not just lead to bad decisions — it leads to real harm to real people. Rigour is not only a quality standard. It is a moral responsibility."
We exist because the stakes in health and psychological evidence are uniquely high. Every synthesis we produce is designed to be used, trusted, and able to hold up when challenged.
Reproducible protocols, validated appraisal tools, and full methodological transparency — meeting the highest evidence synthesis standards on every engagement.
No institutional affiliation. No conflicts of interest. Analysis grounded solely in evidence — defensible before any funder, board, or public scrutiny.
Domain-specialist clinicians, psychologists, policy experts, and academics contribute throughout every review — ensuring interdisciplinary depth and real-world relevance.
Every synthesis actively surfaces distributional impacts, marginalised populations, and equity gaps — because evidence that ignores equity is incomplete evidence.
Supporting ministers, policy units, and reform teams with independently commissioned evidence built to withstand public, parliamentary, and peer scrutiny.
Helping funders understand where the evidence is strong, contested, or absent — enabling strategic grant-making grounded in the best available science.
Partnering with academic health and psychology teams to produce rigorous synthesis outputs, literature maps, and translational briefs.
Equipping clinical executives, commissioning bodies, and system leaders with trusted evidence that clarifies trade-offs, surfaces equity implications, and supports defensible resource allocation.
Whether you have a specific project, need help scoping the right methodology, or want to explore what is possible — reach out. We respond within two business days.
"Book a free 30-minute consultation — no obligation, no pressure."
Tell us about your project and we will identify the right methodology, realistic scope, and timeline. Available via video call or email.