Webinar/Conference Call February 27, 2013

Larkin Strong ◦ 2013 Academic Program Planner ◦ Assistant Professor ◦ University of Texas MD Anderson

Cancer Center ◦ Houston, TX

Mysha Wynn ◦ 2013 Community Program Planner ◦ Executive Director, ◦ Project Momentum ◦ Rocky Mount, NC

Goals: ◦ To improve the quality and reliability of ratings between reviewers; ◦ To provide support to community members and others who may not

be as familiar with the process in reviewing abstracts.

Objectives: ◦ Following this presentation, participants will be able to:

Recognize APHA email with assigned abstracts and online review instructions State the abstract review deadline. Explain steps to take if a reviewer cannot complete reviews by deadline Apply abstract review criteria when conducting abstract reviews Use the review comment section of review Apply guidelines for rating CBPH abstracts Explain what happens after all abstracts are reviewed List tips for maintaining fairness and consistency in reviewing abstracts Recognize who to contact for more information.

All of the information presented in this

webinar is contained in the CBPH Caucus 2013 Abstract Reviewing Guide

This guide can be downloaded from the CBPH Caucus website: ◦ www.cbphcaucus.org (click on Links/Resources)

February 15- Abstracts submissions to the CBPH caucus closed.

March 1- APHA will send out email notices to reviewers with instructions on reviewing abstracts online.

March 4–March 17 – Review abstracts

We request that all abstracts be reviewed by March 11!

Please contact the program planners as soon as possible and no later than March 11 so that your abstracts can be reassigned to other reviewers in a timely fashion!

1. CBPHC Vision ( abridged)

The Community-Based Public Health Caucus is guided by the belief that Community lies at the heart of public health, and that interventions work best when they are rooted in the values, knowledge, expertise, and interests of the community itself.

The complete vision is in the abstract review guide or on our website, www.cbphcaucus.org

2. Evidence of community-engaged research or practice (e.g. CBPR, principles followed, partners identified)

Well grounded in the science of CBPR means following the basic

concepts of CBPR, as outlined by Israel (1997), that include: • Recognizing community as a unit of identity • Building on strengths and resources • Facilitating partnership and capacity building in all phases • Disseminating findings and knowledge to all • Involving a long-term process and commitment • Seeking balance between research and action Ask yourself: Does the abstract contribute to the art and science of

CBPR?

3. Evidence of the role played in the research or practice by community members impacted by the problem.

How did community members’ input, guidance, and feedback impact the decision making for the partnership, project and /or initiatives? Were the community partners involved from planning to implementation when an abstract expresses that their work is CBPR. Is the project community-driven, community-placed or community- mentioned?

4. Scientific strength of the work (e.g. basic research design or assessment methods described and result summarized)

Is the purpose of the study, policy, or program clearly described?

Are the study questions presented appropriate and feasible in the time permitted?

When did the project start? Has this project taken place yet or is it planned to take place after the abstract is written?

How do the authors promise to support the conclusions they will present?

4. Scientific strength of the work (e.g. basic research design or assessment methods described and result summarized), continued:

NOTE: When evaluating program or policy abstracts (i.e. public health practice versus scientific research abstracts), we ask reviewers to consider the differences in the types of methods and results presented when rating abstracts for each evaluation criteria.

Research Abstract: See questions in the Abstract Review Guide, p. 3

Policy/Program Abstract: See questions in the Abstract Review Guide, p. 3

5. Topic addresses social determinants of health

According to the World Health Organization the social determinants of health are defined as “the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, including the health system. These circumstances are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels, which are themselves influenced by policy choices.” (Retrieved from http://www.who.int/social_determinants)

6. Relevance of research/practice (e.g. significance, importance explained)

Does the abstract add new information (research/program/policy) to the field?

Does the abstract describe a new approach, or new application, to the topic?

Or, does the abstract cover a new topic in the field?

Does the abstract present a fresh, unique perspective on existing knowledge?

7. Discusses at least one of the following issues:

Lessons learned, barriers to trust, social change, social justice, social action, health equity, community engagement, community participation, community empowerment, community led, capacity building, and sustainability.

8. Related to the APHA theme: Think Global, Act Local: Best Practices Around the World

Does the abstract present information that relates to the 2013 APHA meeting theme, the vision of CBPHC and/or an important community-based public health problem or evidence of an emerging issue?

Will the presentation contribute to improving public health practice?

Is the abstract compelling, useful, and/or innovative?

There is a place in the online review to indicate your comments. Please use this section to explain your overall enthusiasm.

You may wish to address the following items: ◦ Newsworthy? ◦ Do you agree with the author's requested format (oral,

roundtable, poster)? If ‘No’, why not? ◦ What suggestions do you have for the submitters to

improve this presentation? ◦ Is there at least one valid objective meeting APHA

specifications? Yes/No ◦ What is your overall level of enthusiasm for the abstract as

a potential component of the CBPH program?

The numerical ratings generally can be thought of as conveying the following meaning. You can convey the relative strength of your opinion by choosing a number within the range in each category:

◦ 9 or 10: Definitely Accept; Highest Priority ◦ 6, 7 or 8: Accept; Satisfactory Quality ◦ 4 or 5: Borderline Accept; Lowest Priority ◦ 1, 2 or 3: Not Acceptable; Reject Abstract ◦ N/A: Leave as N/A if this criterion doesn't apply to a

given abstract OR you cannot determine given the information presented in the abstract.

All abstracts are peer-reviewed by both community and academic reviewers (UNIQUE TO OUR CAUCUS)

They will be considered for oral, poster or roundtable presentation, unless authors indicate a preference.

After abstracts are rated, the program planners will organize sessions by overall topics and distribute highest rated abstracts into the sessions.

If an abstract is accepted for presentation, the author is REQUIRED to present material as stated in the peer-reviewed abstract.

These tips were compiled from comments submitted by individuals who volunteered to review abstracts submitted to the CBPH Caucus for the American Public Health Association (APHA) Annual Meeting in Denver, November 2010.

Several people agreed that printing off all the abstracts AND the scoring criteria an important tip. The scoring criteria do not automatically print when you choose to print all the abstracts at the same time. You have to open one abstract and print it to get a copy of the scoring criteria.

“I always print the abstracts out, read all of them and then rank order them.”

“I create a little spreadsheet that allows me to check off (yes/no) whether each abstract meets individual criteria and I use this information to finalize my scores”

1. I first printed/read through all the abstracts

2. Next I graded them using the questions [criteria] following each abstract

3. Then I created an Excel summary of my evaluations, and rank ordered them to determine whether my grades reflected my assessment of the relative strength of each abstract

4. Then I compared my grading with your evaluation scale definitions: 9-10 Definitely accept, outstanding content; 6-8 accept, satisfactory content; 4-5 Borderline

5. I then translated my original ratings to reflect the goals of the defined rating system. I ensured the rank order was preserved.

What tips do you have for others to maintain fairness and consistency in reviewing abstracts?

Type in the CHAT BOX.

Mysha Wynn ◦ 2013 Community Program Planner ◦ cbphc2013@gmail.com

Larkin Strong ◦ 2013 Academic Program Planner ◦ LLstrong@mdanderson.org

Please feel free to contact us should you have questions about reviewing abstracts:

www.cbphcaucus.org