Introduction to
The Campbell Collaboration
and potential for collaboration with a
Cochrane PH Review Group
Arild Bjørndal & Julia Littell
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
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
Overview of
Presentation

Intro to C2


Steps in the C2 review & editorial processes


History, goals, organization, directions
Similarities and differences from Cochrane
Options for collaboration

3 options with examples
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
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
C2 Structure
C2 Non Profit Corporation
C2 Steering Group
Methods
Co-ordinating
Group
Education
Co-ordinating
Group
Crime & Justice
Co-ordinating
Group
Social Welfare
Co-ordinating
Group
C2 Regional
Centers
Intermediary
Organizations
Academia/
Researchers
Campbell Users’ Group
Policy-Makers
Practitioners
The Public
The Campbell Library
Secretariat
Substantive Topics

Education

Crime & Justice

Social Welfare
 Public health interventions exist within these
sectors, hence collaboration is logical
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/copublication 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
C2 Review process
 Process
and requirements similar to
Cochrane:
Title registration form
 Protocol
 Completed review

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

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
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
How C2 process differs from Cochrane

C2 has one Methods group that provides advice
on all protocols and reviews


C2 encourages authors to look at study design as
possible moderator (when possible)



Methods advice is vetted (can be over-ruled) by
substantive Group Editors
RCTs are preferred in reviews of intervention effects,
but not required
Results of RCTs are presented separately from nonRCTs in at least one table
C2 encourages use of meta-analysis, following
reasonable plan developed in protocol
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
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
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
Co-registered titles: examples

Title on mass media interventions for healthcare
utilization





Title on early childhood education



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
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
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
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.
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
Next steps
 Please
let us know …
 What you think
 What questions you have for us
 How we can help



Arild Bjørndal [email protected]
Julia Littell [email protected]
www.campbellcollaboration.org
29 August 2007