How we work with evidence
Our Science Standard
We show what the evidence supports, where it is uncertain and what a workshop cannot prove.
“Science-backed” is easy to print and difficult to police. This page sets out how Brainwave selects sources, turns research into workshop material, reviews public claims and responds when stronger evidence changes the answer.
Last reviewed: 12 August 2026
Evidence-led does not mean evidence-finished.
01 / Process
Evidence-led is a process, not a badge.
We begin with a question, not a conclusion we want the research to decorate. We look for the strongest relevant sources, examine whether the participants and setting match the claim, and separate a plausible interpretation from a demonstrated effect.
A finding from a controlled study can be useful without transferring perfectly to every workplace. A workshop can improve understanding or confidence without proving a change in productivity, health or retention. Our job is to preserve those distinctions while still making the material practical.
Start with the question
Define what we are trying to explain or change before selecting evidence.
Prefer the strongest relevant source
Use systematic reviews, authoritative guidance and primary research appropriate to the claim.
Check the fit
Consider population, setting, method, effect size and whether the result generalises to the audience in front of us.
State the limits
Say when evidence is mixed, early, indirect or context-dependent.
Make the next step useful
Translate carefully, without turning an association into a promise.
02 / Source hierarchy
The source should be strong enough for the claim it carries.
No hierarchy works mechanically: a high-quality primary study may answer a precise question better than a broad review, and official guidance can lag new evidence. This is the default order we use, with judgement and transparency.
- Tier 01
Synthesis and guidance
Systematic reviews, meta-analyses, consensus statements and guidance from recognised public-health, professional or scientific bodies.
- Tier 02
Primary research
Peer-reviewed experiments, observational studies and validated measurement work that directly addresses the question.
- Tier 03
Supporting context
High-quality reviews, academic books, institutional explainers and methodological sources used to clarify mechanisms or definitions.
- Tier 04
Practitioner interpretation
Brainwave's explanation, workshop experience and practical framing. Clearly identified as interpretation rather than published evidence.
Not sufficient on its own: a social post, press release, unsourced statistic, testimonial, product page, single expert opinion or result quoted without its method.
03 / From paper to practice
From paper to practice, without flattening the science.
- 01
Define
Agree the audience, the work context and the learning objective. We do not collect medical records or diagnose a team.
- 02
Review
Select the sources, compare findings and identify the caveats that need to remain visible.
- 03
Translate
Build clear models, examples and exercises that preserve the meaning of the research rather than repeating its jargon.
- 04
Test
Check the session for clarity, accessibility, timing and claims that have become stronger than the evidence.
- 05
Update
Review material as the programme evolves, sources change or a correction is raised.
04 / Claims we do not make
Useful does not have to mean miraculous.
Brainwave is an educational service. Unless a specific, credible evaluation supports the wording, we do not claim that a workshop:
- diagnoses, prevents or treats a medical condition
- rewires a specific neural pathway on demand
- causes a percentage increase in productivity
- reduces burnout by a stated percentage
- changes retention, absence or revenue by itself
- replaces therapy, medical care or organisational change
- gives everyone the same result
- turns one brainwave frequency into one simple behaviour
We may discuss mechanisms, skills and practical options. We distinguish those from clinical advice and from organisational outcomes that require a stronger evaluation design.
05 / Workshop evaluation
Measure the thing the method can actually see.
Immediate workshop feedback is good at measuring immediate experience: relevance, clarity, confidence, intended use and which ideas resonated. It is not, by itself, a test of long-term behaviour or business performance.
When a client wants a stronger evaluation, we agree the question before delivery and choose a proportionate design. That may include a pre-session baseline, a delayed follow-up, repeated measures, operational context or comparison data. The result is reported with the response rate, timing and limitations.
Minimum reporting standard
Every public numerical result must state:
- the exact measure or question
- the number of respondents
- the denominator where known
- when the data was collected
- whether responses were anonymous and voluntary
- who collected and analysed the data
- the main limitations
- whether the result is descriptive or supports a causal claim
Language we use
- “Participants reported…”
- “Among respondents…”
- “Immediate feedback indicated…”
- “The result shows perceived usefulness at the point of delivery; it does not establish a long-term or causal effect.”
Language we avoid
- “The workshop increased productivity…”
- “Brainwave reduced burnout…”
- “The programme delivered X% ROI…”
— unless a credible design and approved analysis genuinely support the claim.
06 / Authorship and review
Say who wrote it, who reviewed it and what each role means.
Brainwave articles may be written by a named person, by the Brainwave editorial team or collaboratively. A person is listed as an author only when they genuinely wrote or materially shaped the article. A scientific reviewer is listed only when they reviewed the claims and sources.
The author and reviewer fields are not reputation decorations. Where no named individual has completed the role, the page says “Brainwave” rather than inventing a byline.
07 / Commercial context
Commercial context should be visible.
Brainwave is a commercial workshop and consulting business. Our public articles support the subjects we teach, but they must not disguise sales copy as a scientific conclusion.
If a page, event, article or expert contribution is commissioned, sponsored, supplied with products or connected to a paid client relationship, the relevant disclosure should appear close to the content. Client permission to show a logo does not alter the evidence standard for a claim.
08 / Accountability
Science changes. The page should show when we change with it.
We correct factual errors, broken citations, mischaracterised findings and wording that goes beyond its source. Material changes receive an updated date. Where a correction changes the conclusion or meaning of a page, we add a visible note rather than silently replacing the text.
To flag a possible error, email hello@wearebrainwave.co with the page URL, the statement in question and the source you believe should be reviewed.
09 / Boundaries
Education, not diagnosis or treatment.
Brainwave workshops and articles are for general education. They do not diagnose or treat medical or mental-health conditions and do not replace care from a qualified professional.
Workplace pressures are not always individual skill problems. Training can provide language, understanding and tools; it cannot compensate for unsafe conditions, chronic overload, bullying, discrimination or a lack of appropriate clinical support.
10 / The standard in use
Bring us the hard question.
Tell us what your team is facing. We will recommend the right format, explain what the evidence can support and say when a workshop is not the whole answer.
Discuss a programme