The document was primarily based on research evidence rather than experiential expertise. While the systematic review included a lived experience researcher and carer in the research team, it found that only three of the seven studies incorporated lived experience perspectives, and only one study included a researcher with lived experience. The authors explicitly noted that the lived experience voice remains "overshadowed by that of clinicians" in this research area.

This document was minimally based on practical wisdom. As a systematic review of research studies, it primarily synthesized academic evidence rather than practical, on-the-ground experience. While it included some service user quotes and experiences from ED settings, the focus was on evaluating controlled interventions rather than capturing the accumulated practical knowledge of frontline clinicians, patients, or community mental health workers who navigate these communication pathways daily.

This document was extensively based on research and evaluation insights. As a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines, it analyzed seven studies across multiple databases, evaluating interventions like support coordination, motivational interviewing, and electronic record systems. The authors conducted critical appraisal, data extraction, and synthesized findings from randomized controlled trials and qualitative studies to assess effectiveness of communication pathways between emergency departments and community mental health services.