DRAFT

Campbell Steering Group Meeting Minutes

Venue: RBUP, Oslo, Norway

Date: 25-26 October 2014

Attending: / Voting members: Arild Bjørndal (Co-chair), Julia Littell (Co-chair), Jane Barlow, Martin Killias, Robyn Mildon, Gary Ritter, Aron Shlonsky, John Westbrook, David Wilson
Online (voting) participants:
Ian Shemilt (25, 26 October);
Peter Tugwell (Afternoon of 25 October)
Non-voting members: Mark Lipsey, Eamonn Noonan
Other participants: Nick Huband,Brandy Maynard (incoming Co-Chair, Social Welfare, Campbell), Terri Pigott, MetteDeding (SFI), Gro Jamtvedt (Kunnskapssenteret), Jenny Rehnman (Socialstyrelsen, Sweden), BirteSnilstveit (3ie), Simon Goudie
Apologies: / Voting members: Ariel Aloe, Paul Connolly, Hugh Waddington
Minutes: / Eamonn Noonan, Simon Goudie
01. Adoption of agenda

Decision

The agenda wasadopted.

The “Robyn Rule” was invoked: attendees who must attend to “other” business during the meeting shall do so outside of the meeting room.

02. Minutes of the previous meeting

The minutes of the previous Steering Group Meeting were approved, with a reserve on the wording of Item 6: Secretariat Report, Sub-item 6a, which is to be clarified.

03. New SG Co-chair – Result of Election
  • Howard White (HW) has been elected as the new Co-Chair of the Steering Group.
  • HW will assume the role of Co-Chair from 1 January 2015
  • In accordance with the Governance Plan, Arild Bjørndal will continue to attend Campbell Steering Group meetings for the next 18 months and as previous Co-chair.

04. Strategic priorities

04a. Relations with the Cochrane Collaboration

Issues/topics discussed

  • There is already a good deal of coordination and information sharing between Campbell and Cochrane. Examples include jointly registered reviews, co-participation in working groups, and cooperation in the development of guidelines and methodologies.
  • Shared access to information and expertise has the potential to strengthen both organisations. Both Collaborations wish to strengthen and formalise the existing relationship. Closer cooperation can help to streamline joint processes and avoid potential duplication, for example, in topic selection and title registration.
  • Working more closely with a larger, health-focused institution such as Cochrane, will require a careful assessment of the strategic and organisational implications for our organisation.
  • Following a discussion with the CEO and Editor and Chief of Cochrane at the Belfast SG meeting, a phone meeting took place in August with the two collaborations’ Co-Chairs, Editors-In-Chief and the CEOs. This identified a number of areas for potential cooperation. These included: the streamlining of processes for cross-published reviews, closer collaboration on methods, shared advocacy, and conferences. Two priority areas were set out:

1. Training for editors: A Campbell Editors Training Group, consisting of SG, JL, JW and TP will liaise with Cochrane’s training programme

2. Sharing of information systems: Following a previous discussion with David Tovey, TP, AA, EN, JL and SG, Chris Mavergames has agreed to organise a webinar about ARCHIE.
DW, JL, and AA (AA’s participation still to be confirmed) will form a working group to learn more about Cochrane’s information systems.

  • Mark Wilson has undertaken to provide a draft MoU that can serve as a framework for cooperationbetween the Collaborations. The document should include details of respective roles and responsibilities, the main activities and joint projects involved, and the designation of suitable contact persons.

Action items

  • Each Campbell CG is invited to draw up a memo outlining potential areas for mutual cooperation with Cochrane, and to detail the extent of possible commonalities and differences. This will be used to inform further negotiations. This exercise has been completed already by the SW group. The memo should be sent to the Secretariat.
  • A working group consisting of RM and Secretariat will identify ways to share information about the Campbell/Cochrane negotiations and related items.
  • JL will circulate Cochrane’s Training and Professional Development Strategy
  • On receiptfrom Cochrane, the draft MoUwill be circulated by the Secretariat.

04b. Fundraising strategy and activities
(Reference document: SG02_141015 Fundraising Note)

Issues/topics discussed

  • The core funding for the Campbell Collaboration at the Knowledge Centre is stable. However, in practice it is half of what it was in 2009. At the same time, we are more active than ever, and there has been a significant increase in the number of active review projects and registration inquiries.
  • In-kind contributions of institutions within Campbell’s network are very important and are hugely appreciated.
  • In order to sustain our infrastructure, expand our editorial and production capacity, and develop new ventures such as training, we need to focus strongly on fundraising activities
  • Current publicity and fund raising efforts by the Secretariat include meetings with NORAD, the Norwegian Education Directorate and the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for Education, as well as conference presentations and seminars.
  • It is also part of our strategy to seek strategic alliances, for example with Cochrane in the effort to engage with the UK What Works Centre for Ageing.

The effort to secure and expand our funding base will be enhanced by improving the way we market the Collaboration and disseminate reviews and their findings. A number of ideas were discussed:

  • We should capitalise on our existing knowledge base, particularly given the number of reviews published, and the funding potential for marketing sets of reviews.
  • We should develop strategic alliances with national knowledge centres.
  • We should seek large-scale funding through grant applications as part of research consortia, also within specific national contexts.
  • We should market the potential cost-effectiveness benefits of our research to policy makers and funders. (Expenditure on programmes whose effectiveness is not documented is potentially wasteful.)
  • We should consider a fee structure for publication in the Campbell library. Charges would defray publication costs and maintenance costs of our open access Library.
  • We may be able to generate revenue through membership or incentive schemes. These could provide, for example, access to training, additional plain language summaries or policy briefs, services unavailable to the general public, tailored content, and newsletters.
  • A wide low-fee membership base could provide a valuable and constant stream of funding.
  • We should develop new resources and products highlighting the importance of investing in Campbell’s research, aimed at agencies, decision makers and policy makers.

Action items

  • The Secretariat will liaise within Campbell’s network to identify additional personnel and time support for the production of new products and communication tools, particularly those focused towards the needs of policy makers and agencies.
  • The Secretariat will draw up a list of communication products that could be developed and produced collaboratively within our network, including a list of tasks and process routines. A draft will be sharedwith RM and JW by the end of November.
  • The Secretariat will develop the fundraising strategy further. Based on the fundraising note and the points recorded above, the Secretariat will draw up a fundraising action plan. Possible models for subscriptions, publication charges, and membership schemes will be examined.

04c. Business model
(Reference document: SG03_140903 Note business model)

Issues/topics discussed

  • Campbell is a diffuse network operating with a light infrastructure. Our level of activity reflects the level of financial and staffing resources available; outside support for review projects is also important.
  • We have achieved a reasonable level of review production in view of the resources available, and our reviews are of high quality. We now need to improve the dissemination and use of our reviews and their findings.
  • We should develop a business model which:

–Improves our efficiency and effectiveness

–Focuses on the dissemination and promotion of our SRs

–Leverages existing and new resources through, for example, collaborations and alliances with other institutions, particularly in developing and promoting products and in seeking funding

–Encourages faster production and greater accessibility of reviews.

–Recognises the importance of academic rigour, and of translating information into accessible, policy-focused, marketable products

–Encourages authors and institutions to collaborate and participate with us

–Promotes the use of new products and strategies to raise funding

–Emphasises the potential value of our research to policy makers, decision makers and practitioners

–Capitalises on the expertise in the network and the body of evidence for policy and practice that we have built up

–Streamlines and integrates our activities and work flows

  • IDCG has presented a proposal for the development of Review Advisory Groups (See Agenda Item 06, Sub-item 6e).

Action items

  • The ad-hoc group established to consider Campbell’s business model (HW, RM, JL, EN) has had an initial meeting; further meetings are planned.The ad-hoc group will consider collaborative fund generating strategies, including alliances with production centres such as the Norwegian Knowledge Centre or 3ie, particularly in relation to speeding the production of reviews.

Presentation by Gro Jamtvedt, Norwegian Knowledge Centre
  • Gro Jamtvedt, Director of the Department of Evidence Synthesis at the Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, which houses the Secretariat, joined the meeting.

Summary

  • The Department of Evidence Synthesis has 70 people and produces reviews in health technology and healthcare and prevention, health promotion, and the organisation of care. The Department includes a global healthcare unit which, inter alia, works closely with WHO in developing guidelines. Members of the unit have been closely involved in Cochrane, in developing the GRADE methodology, and in the DECIDE project.
  • The Department includes a Social Research Unit funded by six Norwegian Directorates: the Directorates for Housing, Child Welfare, Corrections, Police, Integration, and Health. Funding runs until the end of 2014; future funding is under discussion.
  • The review process used by the Centre is similar to Campbell’s as regards procedural steps and quality assurance.
  • The Centre is seeking ways to improve its English output and exposure. Currently, the Centre’s reviews include only one and three page summaries in English; the rest is written in Norwegian.
  • The Centre has commissioned a fast track project with Cochrane’s public health group.
  • Topics for reviews in Norway are invited via a public call. Invitations are sent to the Ministry of Health, Directorate of Health, and Institute of Public Health, patient organisations, hospitals, professional organisations. Submissions are received via the Centre’s website. A Board, including representatives from different Norwegian organisations advises the Centre on short-listing the proposed ideas. HTA topics are sent directly to the Centre for evaluation.
  • When topics are received, the Centre assesses whether any are suitable for a Cochrane or Campbell review. The Centre could consider circulating a request for authors within Campbell; this would be a valuable form of collaboration.
  • The Centre now wishes to evaluate how the reviews are used by those who commission them
  • EN noted that the Centre is currently elaborating a new Strategic Plan to 2017. For the first time this will include explicit acknowledgement of wider determinants of health. This provides a stronger basis for reviews on interventions in social, housing, education, and justice areas.

05. Revision to Governance Plan

05a. Representation of main funder(s) on Steering Group
(Reference document: SG04_141017 Amendment to Plan of Governance)

The SG considered the question of funder representation on the Steering Group.

Issues/topics discussed

  • As we seek to build and sustain strong links with funders, the question of representation on the SG, with or without voting rights, arises.
  • It is reasonable to distinguish between different types of funding and support, for example, grant support, project support, and the hosting of Campbell’s core infrastructure.
  • Representation on the Steering Group may be more appropriate for funders providing infrastructural support. Involvement at an Advisory Group level may be more appropriate for project funders.
  • Funder representation must not impinge on quality control or editorial standards.
  • Many funding bodies may not wish to have representation or voting rights for practical reasons.
  • Discussions around funding should consider potential conflicts of interest and the suitability of the organisation and the proposal as regards Campbell’s aims and objectives.
  • On voting rights, there are good reasons to limit voting rights for funding bodies to organisational issues. However, the distinction between votes on organisational issues and votes on methodological issues may not always be clear.
  • Consideration should be given to representation linked to the funding of infrastructure in Oslo. This funding is provided by the Health Ministry in the form of a contribution to the basic grant of the Knowledge Centre for the Health Services.
  • Funder representation on the Campbell Steering Group will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

Decision

  • The draft amendment will be revisited in the light of the issues raised above.

06. Report from Editors Meeting

06a.Approval of proposal for a fast track
(Reference document: E02_Editorial fast track proposal_Final)

A proposal for a Fast Track (FT) review process, incorporating revisions suggested by the Editors Meeting, was presented.

Issues/topics discussed

  • There is a need to build editorial capacity in order to avoid bottlenecks.
  • The Fast Track will be an additional editorial track, and will not disadvantage SRs in the regular track.
  • Entry into the Fast Track is dependent on sufficient capacity being available. CG participation is voluntary.
  • External methods reviewers can be used where additional expertise is needed
  • The creation of the Fast Track is intended to enhance our appeal to funding bodies.
  • The goal as regards funding it to attract funding for sets of reviews. This is a firmer basis on which to prepare the creation of new editorial capacity.
  • Doing so can help us improve succession planning and mentoring work.
  • The Fast Track programme can also be an opportunity to develop editorial capacity and research synthesis skills also at a senior level.
  • The cost breakdown developed in connection with the FT proposal was welcomed as a useful, practical tool.
  • Thanks to BS and the members of the ad hoc group for their work in elaborating this proposal.

Decision

  • The proposal to institute a Fast Track process was approved unanimously.

Action items

  • The initiative will be evaluated as set out in the proposal.
  • When a Fast Track proposal is submitted, a meeting will be convened between the relevant CG editor and the Methods editors in order to determine whether the necessary criteria are met. These include the suitability of the title and the composition of the SR team. If approved, the proposal will be forwarded to the Editors in Chief for a brief review and sign-off.
  • The breakdown of editorial costs for Fast Track reviews was slightly adjusted, in line with the Editors’ meeting recommendation.
  • The Methods Group will develop a proposal to add editorial capacity and will evaluate changes that can facilitate the Fast Track process.
  • An ad hoc group (BS, AS, JD, CF, CG, EN, JP, and JL) will follow the progress of the fast track system.

06b. New Methods policy briefs

(Reference document: SG06_C2MG_SG Report October 2014_final)

  • The status of the Method CG policy briefs is reported in the Methods CG status report. Please see Agenda Item 07, Item 07a.

06c. Open Management Press (OMP), RevMan & Archie

David Wilson provided an update on the development of the OMP document management system

  • OMP is now available on the web. However, further changes and additional content are needed, such as author checklist material.
  • An OMP webinar training session will be arranged by SJW and DW. Co-chairs and Editors in Chief will also be invited to attend.

Action items

  • A webinar to review Cochrane’s ARCHIE system is being organised by Chris Mavergames and will take place in late November/early December. Further information will be sent via Tom Cracknell and the Campbell Secretariat.
  • A task group (DW, AA – to be confirmed, JL and IS) will hold further discussions with Chris Mavergames about Cochrane’s plans regarding author support tools (CAST) and the future of review production (FORP)

06d. Policy on uses of qualitative research in C2 reviews

  • A change to the wording of Section 2.3 of the Policy and Guidelines for Campbell Systematic Reviews (p.11) was recommended following discussion in the Editors group.
  • The revision is intended to further clarify the role of qualitative evidence within Campbell Systematic Reviews.
  • It was suggested that amendments of this kind should be referred to the Co-Convenors of Qualitative Implementation and Process Subgroup of the Methods CG.
  • It was noted that the Policy and Guidelines document makes clear that the inclusion of qualitative work is encouraged and recognised as important in the context of our systematic reviews.
  • It was agreed that future proposed amendments to the Policy and Guidelines should be widely circulated in good time before coming to the Steering Group for decision.

Decision

  • The proposed revision was approved. The new wording is:

“Qualitative studies cannot be used as the primary basis for Campbell reviews or as the primary basis for conclusions about intervention effects. However, this does not mean they should be excluded from Campbell reviews.”

(Previous wording:

Although qualitative studies cannot be used as the primary basis for conclusions about intervention effects, this does not mean they should be excluded from Campbell reviews.)

06e. Guidance for establishing and managing Review Advisory Groups
(Reference document: E04_IDCG_Advisory_Group_Guidance_final edited_BL_BS)

Issues/topics discussed

  • A proposal for the establishment of Review Advisory Groups was forwarded from the Editors Meeting, with the following proposed revisions:

–The guidance document will be amended to note that the members of the AG cannot act as peer reviewers.

–The guidelines will apply across the Collaboration and made applicable to all groups.

–An alternative acronym should be found for RAG.

–Further comment on the value and the rationale of an Advisory Group will be added.