Arild Bj ø rndal & Julia Littell

1. Introduction toThe Campbell Collaborationand potential for collaboration with a Cochrane PH Review Group Arild Bjørndal & Julia Littell

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. C2 Structure C2 Non Profit Corporation C2 Steering Group Secretariat The Campbell Library Methods Co-ordinating Group Education Co-ordinating Group Crime & Justice Co-ordinating Group Social Welfare Co-ordinating Group C2 Regional Centers Campbell Users’ Group Policy-Makers Practitioners The Public Intermediary Organizations Academia/ Researchers

8. Substantive Topics • Education • Crime & Justice • Social Welfare  Public health interventions exist within these sectors, hence collaboration is logical

9. 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

10. C2 Review process • Process and requirements similar to Cochrane: • Title registration form • Protocol • Completed review

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. Potential Collaboration with a Cochrane Public Health CRG Three options • Consultation only • Co-register/co-publish selected titles • Co-register CRG entity

16. 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

17. Option 2: Co-register titles Two models • 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 • 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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.

21. 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

22. Next steps • Please let us know … • What you think • What questions you have for us • How we can help • Arild Bjørndal arb@kunnskapssenteret.no • Julia Littell jlittell@brynmawr.edu • www.campbellcollaboration.org 29 August 2007