1. Introduction to The Campbell Collaboration and 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 Non Profit Corporation Policy-MakersPractitioners The Public Intermediary Organizations Academia/ Researchers Campbell Users’ Group The Campbell Library Methods Co-ordinating Group Education Co-ordinating Group Crime & Justice Co-ordinating Group Social Welfare Co-ordinating Group C2 Regional Centers C2 Steering Group Secretariat C2 Structure

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 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 1. Consultation only 2. Co-register/co-publish selected titles 3. 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 1.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 2.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.noarb@kunnskapssenteret.no  Julia Littell jlittell@brynmawr.edujlittell@brynmawr.edu  www.campbellcollaboration.org www.campbellcollaboration.org 29 August 2007