SteeringGroup Meeting Minutes

Queen’s University Belfast

June 15, 2014

Attending: / Voting members: Julia Littell (Co-chair), Arild Bjørndal (Co-chair), Gary Ritter, Paul Connolly, David Wilson, Aron Shlonsky, Howard White, Peter Tugwell, Ian Shemilt, Ariel Aloe, John Westbrook, Robyn Mildon
Others: Mark Lipsey, Sandra Jo Wilson, Nick Huband, Jane Dennis, Geraldine Macdonald,Terri Pigott, Emily Tanner-Smith, Hugh Waddington, Birte Snilstveit, Charlotte Gill, Emma Gallagher, Martina Vojtkova, Joshua Polanin,Eamonn Noonan, Karianne Thune-Hammerstrøm, Bjørn Tommy Tollånes, Elise Guzda
Apologies: / Martin Killias, Jane Barlow
Minutes: / Eamonn Noonan, Elise Guzda
01. Adoption of agenda

Decision:

Agenda adopted with minor modifications.

02. Adoption of the “Robyn Rule”

Decision:

The “Robyn Rule” was adopted. The rule states that Steering Group(SG)attendees who must take care of “other” business over the course of the SG meeting shall do so outside of the meeting room.

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

Decision:

The Minutes from the previous SG meeting were adopted.

04. Report from Editors’ meeting
  1. Proposed revisions of the C2 Policies and Guidelines document
  • The Editors’ meeting recommended the approval of a series of eleven proposals and recommendations concerning the adoption, dissemination, implementation and review of MEC2IR conduct and reporting standards (adapted versions of Cochrane’s MECIR conduct and reporting standards), incorporating amendments suggested during the Editors’ meeting.This shouldimprove both the speed of publication and the author experience, in that expectations areclearly stated at the outset of the review process.
  • A draft will be placed on the website for broader consultation as soon as possible. ( and The consultation period will be until 18 July [Note: this was subsequently extended to 31 July]. Over the course of this period Co-Chairs, Editors, Managing Editors and other selected members of Coordinating Groups will be invited to submit collated feedback on behalf of each Coordinating Group. All feedback will be considered in revising the current draft for publication on 1 October. All draft protocols submitted to the editorial process after this ‘implementation date’ must comply with MEC2IR mandatory conduct and reporting standards in order to be approved for publication in the Campbell Systematic Reviews monograph series.

Decision:

The Editors’ group’s proposals and recommendations concerning the adoption, dissemination, implementation and review of MEC2IR conduct and reporting standards, as amended,were approved unanimously.

  1. Proposalto adopt Open Management Press
  • The Open source management (OMP) tool for managing our monographs was presented to the SG.
  • The software is developed and supported by a company based in Vancouver.
  • Start-up costs are estimated at 4,000 USD (this includes online training for all Editors and SG members who will use it). The yearly maintenance costs are estimated at 1,500USD.
  • Changing to this system is intended to eliminate the present problem that groups use dual systems due to the complexities of the current Toolbox.
  • The transition is expected to take approximately 6 months.

Decision:

The proposal to adopt OMP was approved unanimously.

  1. Proposal for publishing comments on C2 reviews
  • The Editors’ meeting endorsed some amendments suggested by Howard White to the proposal on publishing comments on Reviews.
  • The Steering Group made further small revisions.
  • This new policy will be announced and published on the C2 website.

Decision:

The proposal for publishing comments on C2 reviews, as amended, was adopted unanimously.

  1. Other high priority items (from the Editors’ meeting)
  • The Methods Coordinating Group agreed to coordinate development of 6-7 Campbell Methods Policy Briefing notes that will aim to: (i) summarise current state-of-art knowledge for unresolved or contested systematic review methods issues; (ii) describe current Campbell methods policy in relation to those methods issues.
  • It was noted that external resources linked from the C2 website that contain methods guidance on the conduct of SRs should be approved by the Methods Coordinating Group (MG). Information on relevant links is welcome. Potentially relevant links should be sent to the MG. Should they be approved, they will be published in the “Resource Centre” on the Campbell website, which will be maintained by MG.
  • Resources that do not contain guidance on methods for conducting SRs should be approved by the applicable Coordinating Group (CG).
  • In case of doubt, the CEO should be informed of proposals to add external links, and he will direct it to the appropriate CG for approval.

Action point:

A note setting out practice on links to methods resources will be circulated for comments (Sandra Wilson and Julia Littell).

  • The Editors’ meetingdiscussed prioritisation of review projects, for which clear criteria and procedures are desirable. It proposed the setting up of a working group on prioritisation.

Action point:

A working group on prioritisationwas set up and will come back to the SG with recommendations.It will be led by Birte Snilstveit, and the following will serve as members: Ariel Aloe, Charlotte Gill, Carlton Fong, Jane Dennis, Josh Polanin, John Westbrook, and Eamonn Noonan.

05. Working with Cochrane

Background:

  • Mark Wilson, CEO, and David Tovey, Editor-in-Chief,ofThe Cochrane Collaboration (C1)were invited to take part in a discussion on future cooperation between the Collaborations.
  • This followed indications that C1 is open to and interested in developing a stronger working relationship with C2. The purpose of the discussion was to identify possible next steps.
  • A note prepared by a C2 working group (established following the October 2013 SG meeting) was circulated. It identified possible models for a C1-C2 working relationship.
  • A closer working relationship has the potential to provide more multi-disciplinary perspectives on systematic reviews on a wide range of topics on human health and wellbeing, improve review methodologies, and facilitate access to editorial, dissemination and publicity resources.

Points from the preparatory discussion:

  • Partnering with an organization that is much larger than C2 poses particular challenges.
  • While there is interest in a closer relationship with C1, there are concernsabout safeguarding C2’s identity. For example, theCrime and Justice Coordinating Group (CJCG) could not be viewed as a sub-sectionof public health, as a large portion of CJCG’s work does not fall underthe health rubric. There is also overlap between ID, SW, Education and public health.
  • Concerns about maintaining open-access were expressed. It was noted that C1 is committed to open access by 2016.
  • There are advantages in getting involved with a funded, professional distribution channel.
  • On methods, there is some difference in emphasis between C1 and C2, but the spectrum of methods is common to both.
  • It was noted that real integration means that both organisations change.

Meeting with Mark Wilson and David Tovey:

  • Arild Bjørndal introduced the discussion with an account of C2’s evolution, successes, and challenges. He recalled that Campbell’s purpose is to influence the outside world, beyond the health sector; ultimately this is a more important focus than identity.
  • The main points of the conversations within the C2 working group on relationships with C1 were summarised.
  • In 2013 C1 went through a strategic process, resulting in the adoption of a new Strategic Planat the Colloquium in Quebec. This (see here) setsC1 on a path towards majorchanges.
  • It the light of the new strategy, C1 recognizes the utility of developing its working relationship with C2.
  • Both Mark Wilson and David Tovey expressed a clear desire to improve the C1-C2 working relationship.They pointed to the increasing recognition of the overlap between health and social care. They underscored their belief that both C1 and C2 could benefit mutually from a closer relationship.
  • Mark Wilson stated that C1 seeks to become the home of evidence to influence health decisions and improve health care.He explained that discussions around C1 becoming the “home of evidence”(more broadly)would need to go back to C1’s SG. David Toveyindicated that he was open to such a possibility.
  • Mark Wilson explained that “The Cochrane Collaboration” will become “Cochrane”, with new branding. Their vision is that of a Cochrane family, whereby other organizations would keep their own brands, but be part of “Cochrane.” This model would allow for very close associations, but would enable organizations to preserve their distinctiveness.
  • What is meant by “family” needs to be further elaborated. What would this look like in practice?It seems eminently possible for C1 and C2 to link up, given the close similarity of our principles, approaches and goals.
  • Campbell’s target audiences are somewhat distinct from Cochrane’s target audiences. Both aim to reach policy makers and consumers, but their professional audiences differ (e.g., physicians versus teachers, social workers, law enforcement officers, etc.).

Further discussion by the SG:

  • Theexchange of views gives a clearer idea of how C1 envisions working with C2. The focus was not on C2 being overtaken by C1, but rather on finding a model which would allow C2 to maintain its independence. SG members are favourable to this model.
  • The scope of the proposed link between the two organizations needs to be worked out in detail. This includes questions about the power relationship(decision making) and resources.
  • It is proposed to first identify areas where there is already a firm basis for cooperation (such as review production, conferences, knowledge translation and training), and to advance these, and to address the more complex areas(such as governance structures) separately.
  • If C2 does not take this opportunity to further enhance and develop its working relationship with C1, there is the possibility that C1 will look to another organization to fill the role they are seeking from C2. It may well be that we can do better together.
  • C1 has a very clear vision of its future: C2 needs to clarify where it sees itself in 10 years’ time (see points from this discussion below).
  • There remain some differences on synthesis methods; methodological and editorial autonomy is important for Campbell.
  • While there were concerns about jumping in too quickly, several SG members emphasised that it is important to state clearly to C1 that C2 is interested moving towards a closer relationship.

Points on a renewed vision for C2:

  • C2 should be a leader in synthesizing evidence and be a definitive source of evidence with contributors (and possibly centres) across the world linked to governments and universities.
  • C2 must improve the production, efficiency, and accessibility of high quality, interdisciplinary systematic reviews.
  • C2 should consider bringing other groups on board (e.g. psychology).
  • C2 must improvethe involvement of practitioners, policy makers, and other consumers in the production of reviews.
  • C2 must improve the manner in which it communicates what it does.
  • C2 should become a more professional organization in terms of its operations and appearances.
  • C2 should become more visible and reach a wider set of constituents, including the general public.
  • In five-ten years, the C2 library should be a reasonably complete world library of systematic reviews on social policy and practice. We should ask and answer the most important questions within our scope.
  • C2 should demonstrate its impact (i.e., impact of C2 reviews) on policy or practice.
  • C2 should consider production of “derivative” products about empirical evidence and its uses.
  • C2 should have more interactive, customised products, allowing end-users to access and tailor evidence to their needs.
  • C2 should possess a very high-quality website that policy-makers and practitioners consult regularly for their evidence needs.
  • C2 should greatly enhance its advocacy efforts, focussing on the importance and uses of evidence and also on promoting better primary studies. C2 could consider position statements (e.g., supporting the work of others who have developed statements on reporting trials).
  • A key question is whether C2 focus on improving what it currently does, or instead broaden its scope.
  • A manageable number of ideas should be identified with proposals on how to move them forward.

Actions points:

  • C2 will express to C1 our strong interest in moving towards a closer relationship.
  • C2 will propose a joint working group with Cochrane in order to move this process forward.

06. Secretariat Report
  1. Financial report:
  • Eamonn Noonan presented the secretariat reportfor 2013. The Collaboration is growing and the level of activity is increasing on many fronts. However, funding and staffing resources in Oslo are not increasing, and there is little prospect of an improvement in the near term. It should also be noted that we benefitted in 2013 from additional support from the Norwegian Knowledge Centre, which will not be available in future. Fourteen reviews were published in 2013 last year. This level of production should be regarded as a floor, not a ceiling.
  • It was suggested that future reports include more detail on specific performance indicators, and that future financial reports include figures broken down by activity.
  • Both suggestions can be incorporated in future reports. Suggestions for additional key performance indicators are welcome. The Knowledge Centre’s accounts department should be able to provide figures giving a breakdown on secretariat spending by activity.
  1. Fundraising:
  • A note on fundraising was circulated. This incorporates feedback from by a number of CGs.
  • There is an obvious need to expand and improve our fundraising activities.
  • C2 and its CGs compete for funding among many other groups involved inresearch synthesis.
  • One issue with the C2 model is most grants are geared towards teams which do reviews, as distinct from organisations which manage reviews, as Campbell does. C2 should learn from the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie) and look into building up a grant-making infrastructure.
  • CJCG has a verbal agreement with the Jacobs Foundation to provide 500,000 USD over three years for the delivery of a set of systematic reviews. They are interested in funding reviews related to children, to be managed by Campbell. The Jacobs Foundation will be involved in the process of selecting topics for reviews. The agreement does not specify funds for the editorial process. The details (including how to cover editorial costs) will be discussed over the next few weeks. There is potential for additional funding in future ifthe project is successful.
  • We should consider offering subscription memberships for other organisations.

Action points:

A small working group comprised of Howard White, Robyn Mildon and Eamonn Noonan was established to explore alternative business models for C2.

09. Communications Strategy
  • This is a good time to re-visit our communications strategy.
  • A note on communications was circulated as a basis for discussions towards anew strategy.
  • We are in the process of relaunching the Campbell website.
  • It is important to distinguish betweeninternal communications, strategic communications and knowledge translation and to ensure that roles and responsibilities within each are clearly assigned.
  • The possibility of hiring external assistance on communications was discussed. This seems relevant also in view of discussions with Cochrane.
  • C2 should contact C1’s communications department for advice.
  • The elaboration of anew strategy should involve active participation by SG members. The broader C2 network should have the opportunity to get involved.

10.C2 Website
  • A new C2 websitetemplate using a WordPress platform was presented to the SG.
  • The governing principles of the new website need to be clearly defined.
  • The new C2 website is to be launched in October.
  • Concern was expressed about the functionality of the website, which is more important than a new/different look. One important principle is to reduce the number of clicks needed to get to important content
  • Those responsible for providing content should have access to training. Online training will be available. The next SG meeting should give an opportunity for in person training.

11. CG Updates
  1. International Development Coordinating Group (IDCG):
  • 3ie is hosting a conference the first week of September in Manila.C2 members are encouraged to submit papers and sign up for workshops.
  1. Knowledge Translation and Implementation Coordinating Group (KTICG):
  • The draft KTI Governance Plan was presented to the SG.
  • Main KTI activities are listed in Article 2 Section 2 of the Governance Plan.
  • KTICG has the objective of becoming an editorial base supporting C2 review production (see Article 2 Section 1)

Decision:

The SG unanimously approved the KTI Governance Plan.

  1. MCG
  • Ariel Aloe initial 3-year term asMCG Co-Chairstarted on June 1, 2014.
  • The SG expressed its appreciation for the great work of former Co-Chair Terri Pigott, who continues in her role of Methods Editor.
  • The MCG tabled a paper on a single case design research work group.

Action point:

The MCG will draft a brief on the synthesis of results of single case designs, for submission to the SG for approval.

  1. Social Welfare Coordinating Group (SWCG):
  • Brandy Maynard has been elected to the position of SWCG Co-Chair. Her term will begin in November. She will replace outgoing Co-Chair Aron Shlonsky.
  • Co-Chair Jane Barlow has indicated that she will step-down earlier than scheduled, due to other commitments. She will continue in her position until an election can be held and a new Co-Chair selected.
  1. CJCG:
  • The CJCG Steering Committee has proposed thatCharlotte Gill be designated Co-Editor of the CJCG. She is currently the Managing Editor.

Action point:

  • Charlotte’s CV will be circulated to the SG, which will then vote electronically on the proposal.

13. Election of new SG Co-Chair
  • Only one candidate has put their name forwardfor the position of C2 Co-Chair, to succeed outgoing Co-Chair, Arild Bjørndal.
  • It was pointed out that C1 bodies automatically extend the nomination deadline in the event that only one nomination was received.
  • C2 should elaborate procedures for handling various scenarios that may arise in the election of a new Co-Chair.

Decision:

The deadline for expressions of interest in the position of Co-Chair is extended until September 15th. This extension will be announced at the C2 Business Meeting in Belfast, and advertised on the C2 website.

14. Colloquium
  • 2014 Colloquium: a few looseends remain, but overall everything is in place.
  • There is at present no clear candidate venue for a Colloquium in 2015.
  • The possibility of moving to holding Colloquia every alternate year has previously been discussed, and should now be considered.

Action points: