SteeringGroup Meeting Minutes

The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo

Friday 18 October – Sunday 20 October, 2013

Attending: / Julia Littell (Co-chair), Arild Bjørndal (Co-chair), Mark Lipsey, Gary Ritter, Sandra Jo Wilson, Sean Grant, David Wilson, Martin Killias, Aron Shlonsky, Jane Barlow, Nick Huband, Jane Dennis, Peter Tugwell, Terri Pigott, Ian Shemilt, Emily Tanner-Smith, John Westbrook, Robyn Mildon, Maia Lindstrøm, Jenny Rehnman, Geraldine MacDonald, Karianne Thune-Hammerstrøm, Bjørn Tommy Tollånes
Apologies: / Paul Connolly, Howard White, Hugh Waddington, BirteSnilstveit, Charlotte Gill, Josh Polanin, Knut Sundell
Minutes: / Eamonn Noonan, Elise Guzda
01. Opening remarks from MagneNylenna and GroJamtvedt

MagneNylenna and GroJamtvedt highlighted the renewed agreement between the Knowledge Centre and Campbell (C2).

02. Adoption of agenda

Decision:

Agenda adopted with minor modifications.

03. Adoption of the Minutes from the previous Steering Group (SG) meeting

Decision:

The minutes from the previous SG meeting were adopted, with one minor revision.

04.a. Adoption of C2 Systematic Reviews: Policies and Guidelines Document

C2 Systematic Reviews: Policies and Guidelinesdocument was presented for adoption in principle with the understanding that minor changes to the text were likely and welcomed.

Decisions/ Action Points:

  1. The SG adopted The C2 Systematic Reviews: Policies and Guidelines document as a living document.
  2. The Secretariat agreed to upload Version 1.0 to the C2 website where it will be available for comments.
  3. It was agreed that reviews moving forward should indicate which version of C2 Systematic Reviews: Policies and Guidelines document was used.
  4. Notations, links and references to outside sources/guidelines will be added to the document on the advice of the Methods Group (MG) and upon approval of the SG.
  5. The MG will prepare an adapted version of the Cochrane MECIR standards for consideration by the SG.
  6. Appendices with templates for C2 titles, protocols and systematic reviews will be added to the document shortly. Sandra Jo Wilson stated that they are close to completion.
  7. It was agreed that the Secretariat will format and publish the document as a supplement to the monograph series.

Other Points of Discussion:

  • Formalizing feedback via a survey was suggested. It was noted that it would be useful to receive feedback on the new standards(previous surveys, while useful, generated feedback on old standards).
  • It was agreed that this document should be viewed as a living document, and as such, it was suggested that a review of it be regularly incorporated into future SG meetings.
  • The group discussed the issue of updating reviews. It was agreed that in certain instances it is possible that a review can no longer be updated due to a lack of new studies. It was suggested that in these cases C2 should follow the Cochrane model and formally declare these reviews no longer updatable. In cases of a large number of new studies, or in instances of increased policy demand (i.e. hot topic reviews), it was agreed thatit is up to the Coordinating Group (CG) to determine whether a review should be updated before 5 years (bearing in mind that author teams can chose to update their reviews at any point).

04.b. Other C2 Policy Issues: Conflicts of Interest

The document Campbell Collaboration Conflict of Interest Policy was presented for adoption.

Decision:

  1. The SG voted in favour of adopting the Campbell Collaboration Conflict of Interest Policy document and incorporating it into the C2 Systematic Reviews: Policies and Guidelines document.

How to proceed in the event of a declared “interest”is at the discretion of the CGeditors.

04.b. Other C2 Policy Issues: Submitting Comments on C2 Reviews

A draft policy document on submitting comments on Campbell reviews was presented to the SG.

Decisions/ Action Points:

  1. The SG supports the creation of routines for inviting and considering comments on reviews.
  2. Julia Littell and RobynMildon (with assistance from David Wilson and Jane Dennis) will re-work the document presented, and will create a section that delineates the type of feedback the Collaboration is seeking. The Cochrane Collaboration model for soliciting feedback will be examined in the process.

Other Points of Discussion:

One option is for comments to come in the format of a “Letter to the Editor,” similar to existing journals practice. Another is for“Comments to the Authors;” this would allow for some distance between the critique of a specific review and Campbell.

05. Strategic Priorities of the Campbell Collaboration

Decisions:

  1. The SG reaffirmedthe strategic priorities established at the 2012 SG meeting in Nashville.
  2. It was agreed that the Secretariat would report on progress of the various action points at future SG meetings (through an updated document with notes on progress and any revision of priorities).

06. Funding Strategy and Activities

Decisions/ Action Points:

  1. The CEO will lead on drafting a strategic paper re: funding strategy and activities.
  2. The SG agreed to continue to identify and pursue new funding opportunities and to report back (where relevant) to the Secretariat, who will keep an overview C2 funding activities.
  3. The SG will explore options that would allow C2 to both invite and manage donations (including by credit card) via the C2 website.
  4. The secretariat will add information to the C2 website on ways to participate and contribute to website and information material.

Other Points of Discussion:

  • Julia Littell and Eamonn Noonan are currently in the process of finalizing an agreement with the William Penn Foundation for a fixed sum of money for the production of four or five papers (to be produced over the course of the next few months) on the subject of systematic reviews.
  • Julia Littell, Jeff Valentine and Terri Pigott are currently preparing a proposal to be submitted to the Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research for funding for the delivery of methods training.
  • A discussion arose regarding the ability to provide a monetary figure for the production of a review. It was suggested that having this figure would be useful when approaching potential funders. The difficulties associated with providing such figures were pointed out (as costs tend to vary). However, it was suggested that perhaps costing could be provided based on the number of studies that are found.
  • The need to deliver services that funders are interested in was emphasised.
  • We also need to create more opportunities for more people to get involved in our activities.
  • It was noted that Cochrane’s annual income from royalties is about seven times Campbell’s entire annual budget.

07. Co-Registration Principles and Procedures

Decisions/ Action Points:

  1. In order to clarify the status of the Cochrane/Campbell Developmental Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group (DPLPG), the Secretariat will work with Geraldine MacDonald to draft an appropriate amendmentto the Governance Plan for consideration by the SG. The DPLPG Group has been a subgroup of the C2 Social Welfare (SW) CG. Consideration will be given to making the DPLP Group an independent CG within C2.
  2. The procedures for Methods Group input into DPLPG co-registered reviews will be clarified by both the Methods CG and DPLPG.
  3. Procedures for submitting DPLPG reviews for publication will be clarified by both DPLPG and Methods CG.
  4. All thematic CGs are asked to publish updated versions of their remit.
  5. Ian Shemilt, Aron Shlonsky, Jane Dennis, Peter Tugwell, Geraldine MacDonald, Sandra Jo Wilson, Eamonn Noonan, Julia Littell, and Dave Wilson (or Martin Killias) will work on developing a model to work with Cochrane. Julia Littell will chair this group.
  6. Julia Littell, Arild Bjørndal and Eamonn Noonan will continue discussions with appropriate individuals from Cochrane.

Other points from the discussion:

  • In principle, co-registration is a good option. The two collaborations share the same principles including that of non-duplication.
  • We now need an overall governing document for co-registration.
  • We should set about cleaning up the process involved.It was noted that our central system caters for one way of managing a project; this is a dilemma if practice varies across groups. A flow-chart is needed.
  • This should include routines around formatting of reviews for publication (allocation of tasks).
  • This matter is also relevant to our relations with Cochrane (C1) generally; the elaboration of anMoU with C1 would give an opportunity to sort this out.
  • We need a strategy to manage triage and overlap.
  • We should continue to explore and arrange co-registration with relevant Cochrane groups (e.g. Public Health).
  • As cross-listing becomes more common, it is important to avoid duplication or additional iterations.
  • The increasing number of projects in progress mean that capacity constraints are ever more significant, particularly as regards methods editing.

08. Coordinating Group Update

Decisions/ Action Points:

  1. The proposal to reorient and rename the Users Group was approved. The new name is (tentatively)the Knowledge Translation and Implementation Group (KTIG).
  2. It was noted that a CG may engage a Trial Search Coordinator (TSC) to peer review a search strategy for a review project on a case by case basis, and that this work is eligible for reimbursement on the same basis as external peer reviews.
  3. The SG approved updates to the Methods CG bylaws.
  4. The SG approved the appointment of Emily Tanner-Smith as Methods Editor (alongside Terri Pigott).

Other points from the discussion:

  • Martin Killiasoutlined a likely funding opportunity from a Swiss foundation for both the Crime and Justice CG and the Education CG in the amount of $50,000 a year each for reviews.
  • Funders want findings to be communicated, and want reviews to show an impact.
  • What metrics can be used to show impact?
  • The task of framing scientific results from a SR in a plain language, easily accessible format is a constant challenge.
  • Teasing out the implications of SR findings – whether they are implementable in real world settings – is also complex. This is extremely important, and it may need to be done locally, rather than as part of the review.
  • We should consider collecting user stories.

09. Editorial Processes Document

Decisions/ Action Points:

  1. Sandra Jo Wilson and Sean Grant agreed to incorporate recent revisions into the document.
  2. The SG agreed that the document could be published as a provisional document, noting that some sections remain to be finalized.
  3. It was agreed that this document will be considered a living document. Revisions may be considered regularly.
  4. The Managing Editors will work with the Secretariat to ensure that the most recent templates of relevant documents areeasily available via the website (and will encourage their use).

10.a. C2 Website: Alternative Web Solutions

Decisions/ Action Point:

  1. The SG approved the proposal to engage a branding consultancy (possibly in part funded by the Education CG), with the view to re-launch the website before the Belfast Colloquium. An ad hoc group (comprised of Eamonn Noonan, Gary Ritter, Robyn Mildon, Dave Wilson, Paul Connolly and Ian Shemilt) will work on this and revert with costed options.

10.b.C2 Website: Publishing and Management Solutions

Decisions/ Action Points:

  1. The SG approved further work on a transition to a tailored Open Journal Publishing (OJP) optionor equivalent as a publishing and management solution. Sandra Jo Wilson and Dave Wilson will submit a more detailed overview of cost implications (transition costs, fixed annual costs, maintenance costs, etc.).
  2. The Secretariat will identify which administrative costs and other functions provided by the current solution need to be continued, and consider how to arrange this.
  3. The SG agreed to continue with the current arrangement (the Toolbox), without incurring new costs for development, pending the transition to a new solution.

Other Points of Discussion:

  • Any platform/program the SG eventually chooses should require minimal changes/modifications (this is relevant for updating purposes).
  • A key question to consider once a platform is chosen is how much prior data should be taken over to the new system (as this could be a very tedious task).
  • Another question to keep in mind is the amount of administration a system requires (i.e. a system may meet the needs of editors and authors, however, if it requires a significant degree of administration it may not be ideal for the organization given existing staffing/budget constraints at the Secretariat).
  • Transferring the C2 directory from the current Toolbox to a new system should not pose a significant challenge.
  • The question of using Cochrane’s Archie system was raised. While this system would tie C2 to RevMan, which is perhaps not ideal, it is currently undergoing changes that will make it compatible with linked-data. It was noted that the systems beingpresented as potentialsolutions (e.g. Open Monograph Press) are document-based, and thus will not be relevant in the near future (three-five years).
  • It was noted that,while C2 may need to change systems in the future, going with a document-based system in the short term may be considered worthwhile in order to stop the useof duplicate systems. Until now, all CGs have had to create their own internal systems to manage document in the review process, given the limitations of the Toolbox.
  • Transition to a new system will require considerable time.
  • The SG acknowledged the need to follow linked-data developments and noted this as a possible topic for discussion in Belfast.

11.a. Dissemination: Impact Factor

Decisions/ Action Points:

  1. The SG approved the proposal, presented by Karianne Thune-Hammerstrøm, to pursue alternatives to ISI.

11.b. Dissemination: C2 Social Media Strategy

Decisions/ Action Points:

  1. The Secretariat will draft a C2 communications strategy, in consultation with Robyn Mildon and John Westbrook (to be presented at the next Colloquium).
  2. The Secretariat and Colloquium committee memberswill use social media to raise the profile of the C2 Colloquium.
  3. The Secretariat agreed to maintain and increase its current level of social media presence.
  4. The SG agreed to give consideration to a possible workshop on social media at the Colloquium (to be arranged by the Secretariat in collaboration with the Scientific committee).

Other Points of Discussion:

  • The nature of communication has changed and become more interactive. One-way communication is no longer enough. Campbell should use social media tools to help it raise its own profile and to disseminate its reviews.
  • Many SG members expressed a desire for a short workshop to cover some of the Twitter basics.

12. User Abstracts: Guidelines and Processes

Decisions/ Action Points:

  1. The reformed KTIG, in consultation with the editors and the Secretariat, will propose content guidelines for Plain Language Summaries (PLS), and process and content guidelines for User Friendly Abstracts (UFA).

Other Points of Discussion:

At present, PLS are prepared by the authors and included within the review; UFA are prepared separately and may be authored by others.

13. a. Colloquium: Belfast June 2014

Decisions/ Action Points:

  1. The Coordinating Groups were asked to recruit additional members to the Scientific committee, particularly younger faculty.
  2. The Scientific committee stated that the call for proposals would be issued as soon as possible.
  3. It was further agreed that the Scientific committee would begin to reach out at once to potential keynote speakers.
  4. It was agreed that training workshops require the approval of the Methods Training group.
  5. The SG agreed to set up an ad hoc sponsorship committee to identify and contact potential sponsors.

Other Points of Discussion:

Sessions on evaluation of interventions may be arranged.

13.b. Planning for 2015 South Africa

Decisions/ Action Points:

  1. It was agreed that the options for 2015 should be defined more clearly.
  2. The SG expressed openness to increased involvement in the forthcoming Cochrane Colloquia.

* The Secretariat agreed to take the lead on the above.

14. Campbell Awards 2014

Decisions/ Action Points:

  1. The SG decided to set up a nominating committee for the C2 awards. The committee will be comprised of Julia, Terri and Aron, with others from outside North America to be determined.
  2. The Secretariat will publish the call for nominations shortly.

15.a. Partnerships: Cochrane

Decisions/ Action Points:

  1. The SG agreed that it should seek to develop and codify C2’s relations with Cochrane, for example, in a MoU. An ad hoc group comprised of Ian Shemilt, Jane Barlow, Peter Tugwell, Julia Littell (Chair), Eamonn Noonan, David Wilson, Sandra Wilson and the Secretariat will take this forward.
  2. The SG approved ongoing discussions on a joint C1/C2 proposal to support the What Works Network in the UK.

15.b. Partnerships: SFI Campbell

Decision/Action Point:

  1. The Secretariat will continue bilateral dialogue on how to build this relationship.

Other Points of Discussion:

SFI expressed appreciation for the good work of the editorial team.

15.c. Partnerships: Other Partnerships & German Campbell Centre Proposal

Decision/Action Point:

  1. Inquiries about new centres should be referred to the secretariat.

Other Points of Discussion:

Discussions on establishing new partnerships are based on the frameworks set out in the Governance Plan.

16. CEO/ Head Office Report

Decision/Action Point:

  1. The Secretariat should identify priority indicators and consider setting specific targets.

17. Other Business

Decision/Action Point:

  1. The SG established a search committee to identify candidates for the co-chair position which becomes vacant next year. The members of this committee are Julia Littell (Chair), Mark Lipsey, Terri Pigott, Aron Shlonsky: Howard White will be invited to join as well.

18. Next SG Meeting

Decision/Action Point:

  1. The next SG meeting will take place Saturday June 14 and Sunday June 15th, 2014, in Belfast.
  2. The Editors meeting will take place Saturday morning June 14th.
  3. All concerned have agreed to save the dates.
  4. Meetings rooms at Queen’s need to be booked.
  5. A Skype SG meeting can be scheduled in the interim if necessary.

Y:\K-avdeling\O\OVF\OVT\Campbell Collaboration\C2 CG and SG\C2 Steering Group\Steering Group meetings\2013 SG mtg Oslo Oct\Minutes1 | Page