TY - JOUR T1 - Evidence-Based Programs, Yes—But What About More Program-Based Evidence? JF - Global Health: Science and Practice JO - GLOB HEALTH SCI PRACT SP - 247 LP - 248 DO - 10.9745/GHSP-D-18-00192 VL - 6 IS - 2 A2 - , Y1 - 2018/06/27 UR - http://www.ghspjournal.org/content/6/2/247.abstract N2 - Policy makers and program managers are better enabled to draw relevant lessons from implementation research and program experience elsewhere when there is richer documentation on what was done and what key contextual factors may have influenced outcomes. Newly developed Program Reporting Standards from WHO provide helpful guidance on what is needed for optimally useful documentation.See related article by Koek.An important development over the past couple of decades has been the emergence of reporting standards for various types of research. In the early 1990s, journal editors and investigators agreed on standards for reporting randomized controlled trials, issuing the Standardized Reporting of Trials statement.1 Over the years since, this has evolved to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)2 and numerous reporting standards have been developed for other types of study and evidence synthesis, many of which can be found on the website of the EQUATOR Network (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) (http://www.equator-network.org/). These standards have not only helped improve reporting of research results but also both raised the bar on quality of the research itself and strengthened guidelines based on evidence synthesis. Nevertheless, this development has been largely driven in response to felt needs of investigators and journal editors rather than those of program managers and policy makers.Certainly, much is gained from translation … ER -