Transcript Slide 1
The following slides were presented at a meeting of potential editors and methods advisors for the proposed Cochrane review group in February 2008. The slides were designed to promote discussion rather than represent the views and directions of this group. Overview of work conducted by Cochrane Collaboration and the HPPH Field The Cochrane Collaboration Global Network of dedicated volunteers, supported by a relatively small no. of core staff Production and dissemination of Cochrane Reviews (systematic reviews of effects of interventions) Policy – no funding from commercial vested interests Mostly government funding Most systematic reviews unfunded Cochrane receives royalties from publishers of The Cochrane Library, Wiley-Interscience The Cochrane Collaboration Over 70 entities, worldwide 51 Collaborative Review Groups 15 Fields 12 Methods Groups 12 Cochrane Centres (+ 14 Branches) Steering Group and its working groups Secretariat Cochrane Collaboration: advantages and disadvantages for public health Advantages Published electronically – quarterly and ? more frequently in future Global national licences for free access: > 1 billion people Reputation for high quality Disadvantages Need for relevant updated reviews in user friendly formats Public health in Cochrane 1996: Health Promotion Field (UK and Canada) 1999-2006: Health Promotion and Public Health Field (2000+ Australia) 2007: Health Promotion and Public Health Reviews with EPOC 2008 (mid-April?): Field -> Review Group status Contact database 442 members, from 48 different countries (incl 23 DCs) From Field to a Public Health Review Group • Decision in the making for many years • Current Review Groups tend to address single interventions with straightforward outcomes – not congruent with PH interventions and outcomes. • Need for a CRG to tackle the complex, multi-sectoral, multi-component, upstream interventions called for in public health • Dedicated editorial team with public health content and reviewing expertise • Ensure that high quality evidence reviews focus on ‘what works for whom and why’ – understandable to public health folk • Need to engage sectors outside health A Public Health Review Group Challenges User engagement Integration into standard information resources Reviews international in scope - cultural influences and differences Under-representation of public health’s primary prevention and health promotion capacity building initiatives Opportunities Widely called for – ‘that’s exactly what’s needed’ Regional satellites Innovative – embracing stakeholder engagement and production of key needed systematic reviews Essential to support development and use of evidence in HPPH policy and practice Guidelines: reviews → improvements in primary research. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Advisory Group of users and researchers Policy relevant interventions Broad scope of study designs Theoretical framework Extraction and integration of process, impact and outcome data Cost related evaluation – cost consequence, cost effectiveness Integrating qualitative and quantitative studies Heterogeneity Equity and sociocultural issues Integrity of intervention Public health ethics Sustainability Priorities for review topics and processes Global decision makers Indigenous populations Developed countries 2007- 08 People/consumers/community 2008 - 09 Recent activity Joint submission to Collaboration “Prioritisation Funding” from HPPH Field, Equity in Health Field, Developing Countries Network, EPOC Oslo Satellite on LMIC Successful project: Prioritising Cochrane reviews topics to reduce the ‘know-do gap’ in low and middle income countries - To identify priority review topics of relevance to improving the health of the poorest and most disadvantaged populations in LMICs Milestones and proposed goals – – – – – – – 6-8 priority reviews completed per year (from 2008). User friendly formats: 1/3/25 etc Tools for authors (from 2008) Technical methods papers (from 2008) HPPH studies register (from 2008) Knowledge Translation & Exchange – quick reference guides, register of relevant papers (from 2007) Education and training (from 2007) Questions/Issues for consideration 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) What are the potential ‘sticking points’ for support for more involvement in Cochrane from those working in public health? How do we recruit experienced public health reviewers to undertake Cochrane reviews? How do we determine high priority reviews? How do we support high priority reviews? Opportunities for closer ties with other public health organisations? How do we engage with sectors outside of health (to be true to our upstream, multisectorial scope) What are the advantages and Disadvantages of registering as a joint entity with the Campbell Collaboration? Should we? Other issues?