Building Trust with Uncertain Data in Policy Contexts

As real-world evidence (#RWE) continues to shape regulatory and reimbursement decisions, ensuring the quality and transparency of real-world data (#RWD) is more critical than ever. A growing ecosystem of tools and frameworks is helping elevate standards across study design, data selection, and reporting, as highlighted below. 🔹 SPIFD2 Framework – A structured process guiding researchers to identify fit-for-purpose data sources, ensuring relevance and validity in study design https://lnkd.in/egXXm5c6 🔹 REQueST Tool – Developed by EUnetHTA to support registry owners in maximizing data quality for health technology assessments and regulatory use https://lnkd.in/eAgzihkJ 🔹 DARWIN EU – A pan-European federated data network enabling secure exchange of RWD for healthcare delivery, policy-making, and research (EMA) https://lnkd.in/eT4XP_bJ 🔹 FDA QCARD Initiative – Offers oncology-specific guidance on data quality and study design, improving the rigor of RWE proposals in cancer research (FDA) https://lnkd.in/erssUTAh 🔹 STaRT-RWE & HARPER Templates – Provide standardized frameworks for planning and reporting RWE studies, enhancing methodological transparency and reproducibility (ISPE/ISPOR) https://osf.io/6qxpf/ 🔹 REPEAT Initiative – A non-profit program evaluating reproducibility of published RWE studies and promoting transparency in longitudinal healthcare database research https://lnkd.in/e4Q5JjCE 🔹 EU Data Quality Framework for Medicines Regulation – Provides guidance and recommendations for assessing the quality of datasets used in regulatory decision-making, with a focus on real-world data and adverse drug reactions (EMA) https://lnkd.in/eKNFtPHU Together, these efforts are helping build trust in RWE by aligning its transparency and quality standards with those of randomized controlled trials. The goal is to ensure that decisions based on RWE are robust, reproducible, and ultimately beneficial to patients. #RealWorldEvidence #RWD #DataQuality #Transparency #FDA #EMA #Biostatistics #ClinicalResearch #RegulatoryScience #EvidenceBasedMedicine #HealthTechAssessment #RWEFrameworks

Embrace Uncertainty Uncertainty isn’t a problem to eliminate. It’s the reality we work in. Trouble comes when we treat information as if it gives absolute answers. It rarely does. Every piece of information carries assumptions, limitations, and missing context. Embracing uncertainty means: • Acknowledging that data doesn’t speak for itself • Being transparent about confidence and doubt • Staying open to multiple explanations before acting This doesn’t weaken decisions. It strengthens them because acknowledging uncertainty improves interpretation and lowers the risk of false conclusions. What this looks like in practice: • Avoid presenting information as proof. Instead, present it as evidence that supports (or challenges) a working idea. • Pair every conclusion with its assumptions. Make it clear what would change the interpretation. • Frame decisions as adaptable, not fixed—allowing space for updates without eroding trust. • Encourage conversation around uncertainty. When doubt is shared openly, teams are more likely to stay aligned. When we stop chasing certainty and start working with uncertainty, we make stronger decisions. We also build greater trust, because the reasoning is clear, the limitations are acknowledged, and the process for adapting is visible to everyone. Follow @sportscinetwork on X and Instagram for more practical frameworks and updates from The Sport Science Handbook (update: Coming September 2025).

As biodiversity climbs up the corporate agenda, there’s a real tension I keep seeing: Scientists are used to uncertainty. Businesses aren’t. That’s not a criticism — it’s just a difference in worldview. Science works with incomplete data all the time. But business, especially at senior levels, often expects clarity: numbers, forecasts, dashboards. So when companies start developing nature strategies, they understandably want things to feel more “solid.” That often means obsessing about measurement and drastically trying to over-quantify everything. And that’s risky - because when we push too hard for certainty, we can lose credibility instead. If you’re leading this work inside a company, here’s what I’ve found useful — both in thinking and in communicating: ▶️ Aim for coherence, not perfection. Make sure your approach makes ecological and strategic sense, even if it’s not fully measurable yet. ▶️ Build things to adapt. Nature-related risks will shift and the world is constantly changing. The smartest strategies are the ones that can flex, not just tick today’s boxes. ▶️ Start with purpose. Before diving into indicators, get clear on why your business needs to act — based on its real-world impacts and dependencies. Talking to Leadership Taking nature up the chain as a topic can be daunting. You’re often walking into a room with caveats instead of certainty. But here’s what I try to focus on: ✅ Resilience to disruption Nature-related risks — like water scarcity, supply chain shocks, or regulation — don’t arrive with warning labels. A strategy that can respond to change is a business asset, not a scientific indulgence. ✅ Investor and stakeholder trust Regulators and financial markets are increasingly attuned to nature-related disclosures. Showing that your business understands uncertainty — and is acting on it — builds credibility. ✅ Innovation and competitive edge By embracing complexity, your company stays ahead of the curve. You’ll be better placed to adapt as policy, science, and stakeholder expectations evolve. ✅ Better long-term decisions Overconfidence in simplistic metrics can lead to poor investments or reputational risk. Being honest about uncertainty improves governance and risk management.. 💬 Curious how others are managing this tension — especially those in sustainability roles. How are you helping your teams or leaders navigate the messiness? #Sustainability #Biodiversity #NatureStrategy #Uncertainty #Leadership #NaturePositive #CorporateESG