Download - Arild Bj ø rndal & Julia Littell
Introduction toThe Campbell Collaboration and potential for collaboration with a Cochrane PH Review Group
Arild Bjørndal & Julia Littell
Introduction: Arild Bjørndal
Co-chair, Campbell Collaboration (C2) Steering Group
Co-chair, C2 Social Welfare Coordinating Group
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Olso, NO
Introduction: Julia Littell
Member, C2 Steering Group
Co-chair & Coordinating Editor, C2 Social Welfare Coordinating Group
Professor, Bryn Mawr College, Graduate School of Social Work & Social Research, PA, USA
Overview of Presentation
Intro to C2 History, goals, organization, directions
Steps in the C2 review & editorial processes Similarities and differences from Cochrane
Options for collaboration 3 options with examples
Brief history of C2
Since 1999 meeting in London C2 modeled on Cochrane (C1) produces systematic reviews in fields of social
care shares Cochrane’s goals, values, and principles:
Collaboration, independence, high quality, teamwork, diversity, avoid unnecessary duplication of effort
C2 holds annual colloquium
C2 Organization
Non-profit/charity International steering group (SG)
Overlaps with Cochrane SG C2 Secretariat Office now in Oslo, NO 5 Coordinating groups
Methods – has multiple subgroups, some co-registered with Cochrane
Users Group 3 Substantive Coordinating (Review) Groups
C2 Non Profit Corporation
Policy-Makers Practitioners The Public Intermediary Organizations
Academia/Researchers
Campbell Users’ Group
The
Cam
pbel
l Lib
raryMethods
Co-ordinatingGroup
EducationCo-ordinating
Group
Crime & JusticeCo-ordinating
Group
Social WelfareCo-ordinating
Group
C2 Regional Centers
C2 Steering Group
Secretariat
C2 Structure
Substantive Topics
Education
Crime & Justice
Social Welfare
Public health interventions exist within these sectors, hence collaboration is logical
Strategic directions
C2 Library is currently online at www.campbellcollaboration.org Contains register of trials in social care (C2-SPECTR) and
database of C2 systematic reviews (C2-RIPE) C2 in negotiation with publishers Results will have implications for co-registration/co-
publication of reviews with Cochrane Organizational development
Have three broad coordinating groups May need larger number of review groups with specific foci
Governance model becoming more like Cochrane Democratic, open
C2 Review process
Process and requirements similar to Cochrane:
Title registration form Protocol Completed review
Resources for review authors
Cochrane Handbook C2 protocol guidelines, available from
www.campbellcollaboration.org C2 methods policy briefs
Available on web Updating these so that they can serve as
addendum to Cochrane Handbook, clarify any differences between C1 and C2
Protocol development: Software
Cochrane’s Review Manager (RevMan) Preferred for C2 Social Welfare reviews Required for co-registered (C1/C2) reviews Paste in tables and graphs from other programs
(e.g., CMA) as needed Other formats are possible for C2-only
protocols and reviews E.g., Crime & Justic Group prefers Word
Protocol development: Content
Requirements parallel to Cochrane Emphasis on logic and transparency
rationale for decisions, e.g., study designs included/excluded
plans for subgroup and moderator analysis
How C2 process differs from Cochrane C2 has one Methods group that provides advice
on all protocols and reviews Methods advice is vetted (can be over-ruled) by
substantive Group Editors C2 encourages authors to look at study design as
possible moderator (when possible) RCTs are preferred in reviews of intervention effects,
but not required Results of RCTs are presented separately from non-
RCTs in at least one table C2 encourages use of meta-analysis, following
reasonable plan developed in protocol
Potential Collaboration with a Cochrane Public Health CRG
Three options
1. Consultation only
2. Co-register/co-publish selected titles
3. Co-register CRG entity
Option 1: Consultation only – informal relationship between C2 and Cochrane PH CRG
Share contacts (e.g., external readers) between groups
Obtain input from methods/statistics experts in other groups
Obtain advice on editorial decisions from editors in other groups
Help assemble review teams with good mix of substantive and methodological skills
Option 2: Co-register titles
Two models1. Cochrane and Campbell groups create a joint editorial
process for purposes of a particular review Coordinate use of substantive external readers (1 from each
group?) Obtain critiques from C1 statistician and C2 methods Requires careful coordination of timing and documents Need editorial approval in both groups
2. One group takes responsibility for editorial process Other groups may adopt or reject products when finished Saves authors from having to go through two separate editorial
processes
Co-registered titles: examples Title on mass media interventions for healthcare
utilization Co-registered in C1 EPOC and C2 Social Welfare Went through EPOC first Went through expedited editorial process in C2 Social Welfare Extra iterations, but authors benefited from additional feedback
Title on early childhood education in C2 Education group and joint C1/C2 Developmental,
Psychosocial, and Learning Problems Group One group will take editorial responsibility
Title co-registered in all 3 Campbell review groups One group takes the lead Other 2 adopt/reject products
Option 3: Co-register CRG Requires proposal approved by Cochrane & Campbell SGs
Modeled on existing co-registered CRG: Developmental, Psychosocial, & Learning Problems (DPLP)
DPLP produces titles, protocols, and reviews that are registered in both collaborations
Single, streamlined editorial process meets requirements of both Cochrane and Campbell
Editorial process includes: Editor, RGC, TSC, 2 substantive external readers, Cochrane statistician, + the Campbell Methods Group
Issues of co-registration (of reviews or entity)
Advantages:
More diverse, inter-disciplinary substantive expertise available to authors
Bridges some statistical/methodological traditions, opportunities to use the best of both
Reviews reach wider audience, spanning fields of health care and social care Brings readers into both Cochrane and Campbell Libraries
Creates new opportunities for learning for Cochrane and Campbell editors, statisticians, reviewers, etc.
Issues of co-registration (continued)
Disadvantages:
Working across two organizations, with somewhat different cultures
Process more time consuming (for authors, with delays in publication, and for RGCs and editors) unless CRG is co-registered
Next steps
Please let us know … What you think What questions you have for us How we can help
Arild Bjørndal [email protected] Julia Littell [email protected] www.campbellcollaboration.org
29 August 2007