DRAFTCampbell Steering Group Meeting Minutes

Venue: RBUP, Oslo, NorwayDate: 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 NoonanOther participants: Nick Huband, Brandy Maynard (incoming Co-Chair, Social Welfare, Campbell), Terri Pigott, Mette Deding (SFI), Gro Jamtvedt (Kunnskapssenteret), Jenny Rehnman (Socialstyrelsen, Sweden), Birte Snilstveit (3ie), Simon Goudie

Apologies: Voting members: Ariel Aloe, Paul Connolly, Hugh WaddingtonMinutes: Eamonn Noonan, Simon Goudie

01. Adoption of agenda

Decision The agenda was adopted.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

1 | P a g e

DRAFT 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 cooperation between 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

2 | P a g e

DRAFTdifferences. 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 receipt from Cochrane, the draft MoU will 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

3 | P a g e

DRAFTsummaries 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 shared with 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

4 | P a g e

DRAFT– 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.

5 | P a g e

DRAFT 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.

6 | P a g e

DRAFTDecision 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.

7 | P a g e

DRAFT 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.

8 | P a g e

DRAFT 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.

Decision A revised version will be submitted for approval to the Steering Group by electronic

vote.

Action items BS and JW will update the document on the lines recommended and circulate a revised

version for comment.

9 | P a g e

DRAFT

07. Coordinating Group Updates

07a. and 07b. Coordinating Group updates

Methods Coordinating Group update (Reference document: SG06_C2MG_SG Report October 2014_final) The MCG has achieved the creation of a Special Interest Group in Systematic Reviewing

and meta-analysis within AERA. They will be presenting 1 session with 4 papers at the AERA conference, and SJW will

be a guest speaker. The MEC2IR documents have been posted on the Campbell website. It was noted that the membership of the Methods Group now stands at 102 people. Any changes to Methods policies and guidelines are not retroactive. Changes should be carefully reported and communicated, and up-to-date versions

should be easily accessible to authors and editors.MCG action items Requests for document deletions and updates on the current and new website should

be sent to the Secretariat. Important! Updates to CG documents should be clearly dated, so that only current

versions are used.

Crime & Justice Group update(Reference document: SG07_CCJG Report to C2SG_14Oct14) The CJCG has been particularly active over the last years and new topics are being

sought. This is challenging given the lack of research in many areas. Topics could be generated via a system similar to the public and organisational call

strategy used by the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services. A more agency-focused and knowledge-broker focused approach to topic identification

may also be beneficial: decision makers and policy makers could provide valuable input when identifying new topics.

A similar model was used by the CJCG in its work with the NPIA: the CJCG requested help and funded the reviews.

IDCG update (Reference document: SG08_IDCG Progress Report for SG meeting 17th October 2014) A number of IDCG reviews are currently in production. There is a need to produce more policy-friendly reports, like the 3ie publication about

Farmer Field Schools.

10 | P a g e

DRAFT Publishing reports and other outputs in conjunction with other network partners is a

way to extend our portfolio of ancillary products. Our SRs are open access and this gives others leeway to elaborate on the material we

publish, so long as the source of the work is attributed. Campbell needs to capitalise on the value of its research. Currently, many media

reports do not directly credit or refer to Campbell SRs. Increases in funding and infrastructural investment in Campbell may help to address this concern. Network partners producing material based on Campbell review/s should also be encouraged to reference Campbell.

KTI update(Reference document: SG09_Update Report for the KTI Coordinating Group) The KTI CG is looking for a new editor, and will email relevant CVs to EN. The KTI group is producing a series of webcasts about each CG. These will focus on the

work undertaken by each group.

Education update(Reference document: SG10_Education CG Progress Report 2014 10) The ECG has issued a second round of mini grants based on funding from the Smith

Richardson Foundation. 11 SRs funded by the grant competition are in the pipeline The ECG is also involved in the Jacobs Foundation grant, and this may allow 1 or 2

additional projects to be initiated. Further details about the Jacobs Foundation grants are now available on their website.

The final decision about project funding will be made by the Joint Committee established in partnership with the Jacobs Foundation.

The ECG has identified 6 to 8 additional ‘hot topics’.

Social Welfare(Reference document: SG16_SWCG Prog Report to SG_OSLO_ oct 2014 draft for cochairs and Ed) JB has agreed to stay on as Co-chair of the SWCG – a very positive development! The term of AS as Co-Chair ends with this meeting. BM has been elected as a new Co-

Chair and her term begins now. The draft review on ART (Aggression Replacement Therapy) has been withdrawn due

to methodological concerns. Attempts will be made to bring this project to completion (see action item below.)

Late-stage cancellation is a major concern, as it means scarce resources have been used for no visible return in the library. In such cases, we should conduct an exit interview and seek to identify the reasons for the cancellation.

11 | P a g e

DRAFT The SWCG is looking for further topics (that are not related to children or clinically-

focused topics) in areas such as homelessless and poverty. SW action items AS, NH and TP will liaise to help this project reach completion. ML has indicated his

willingness to get involved. The authors will be informed of options which can help bring the review to completion, for example by bringing experienced reviewers to this work.

BM and JB will complete a scope-of-work statement for the SWCG and share this with the other CGs.

07c. Approval of Editor nomination

Decision The Steering Group approved the nomination of BS as Editor of the IDCG.

Action item A group consisting of TP, ETS (to be confirmed), JL, and PT will provide mentoring

support.

07d. General consideration of certain editorial matters

Action items An ad-hoc group consisting of JL, PT, TP, and ETS, with additional participation as

appropriate on a case-by-case basis, will be available to editors to offer support on more challenging editorial issues.

An ad-hoc group consisting of JL, JB and PT will discuss the skills and qualifications required for editors.

07e. Proposed C2 Policy on Posting Methodological Resources(Reference document: SG12_C2 policy on methods resources)

Issues discussed The document under discussion was proposed, discussed and minuted in Belfast. The current version contains minor changes to the language

Decision The Steering Group approved the document as revised.

12 | P a g e

DRAFT

08. Communications

08a. Approval of Communications Plan(Reference document: SG13_Draft Communications Plan)

Issues/topics discussed The Communications Plan was presented by the Secretariat. The core objectives

include – Raising the profile of the Collaboration, in order to increase networking and

fundraising opportunities– Developing a more active approach to the dissemination reviews and review

findings– Developing new products, such as author interviews, policy-friendly summaries,

plain language abstracts and summaries, comment pieces, podcasts and blogs – Improving internal communication within the Collaboration

The Communications Plan could be developed further by:– Including detailed process steps for developing new products – Matching specific messages and content formats to preferred targeted groups– Focusing on products that are relevant to decision and policy makers, agencies and

funders– Outlining mechanisms for cooperation with other institutions linked to the

Campbell network – Identifying additional products

Our communication outputs should focus less on technical and methodological issues and more on issues relevant to policy makers and decision makers

Consistent branding is critical

General observations It was noted that html versions of the MEC2IR documents (as distinct from Word or

PDFs) would be preferable on the new website. With the new website, more detailed download information will be provided, for

example, downloads by week and/or month. Links to ancillary products will also be considered.

Proposed new products and strategies Interviews with individual researchers within Campbell, to highlight the professional

expertise in the network. Stories about how the reviews have been applied, particularly by decision makers

13 | P a g e

DRAFT The promotion of bundles of reviews and content themes Plain language summaries Tracking download statistics and sharing them with SRs authors; congratulating

authors on the publication of a review Creating plain language explanations of Campbell Systematic Reviews for journalists,

the work of the Collaboration, and the key concepts and methodological ideas we use. 2-3 page overviews of what we have learned in the different CGs about what works or

what harms; i.e. a narrative or summaries of the reviews. Regular communication with Campbell authors or CGs (perhaps every 6 months) to

identify presentations, conferences papers, posters or other outputs related to Campbell SRs or thematic areas, that could be flagged on the website

Brochures and advertising material promoting our training portfolio

Action items SG will develop a product and process matrix, outlining specific objectives, key

messages, and target audiences. The Cochrane Express strategy will be referenced. An updated version of the Communications Plan and product matrix will be shared with RM and JW.

RM, EN, JW and SG will discuss potential project and task sharing. Secretariat will make contact with Julie Wood, Head of External Communications in

Cochrane. JL will coordinate the production of 2-3 page non-academic summaries highlighting key

lessons learnt in each CG– ML and GR will produce an initial content draft– JL will develop a format and ensure that the summaries are consistent in style and

content. EN will create a summary of Campbell (its history and origins), and the importance of

SRs. A shorter version of this material will be included in the summaries, and a longer version can be produced separately.

08b. Update on the redesign and relaunch of the C2 website

Issues/topics discussed The beta website was user tested in August and September. A number of architectural

problems were identified. Additional changes were requested and opportunities for improved banding identified.

The Secretariat has completed negotiations with the Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services to provide technical and design support for the new website.

14 | P a g e

DRAFT The redesign will focus on improvements to 1) The library 2) The Resource Centre 3)

The main website. We aim to provide a revised costing and timeframe by the 18th of November. We will

also consider additional development models, such as partnering with organisations linked to the Collaboration. Product proposals, also on the wireframe design were noted.

Action items Secretariat to finalise timelines and cost schedules for the new website following

completion of the new Communications Plan, inclusion of newly identified preferred features, and adjustments to the website wireframe

Secretariat to contact Josh Polanin about restructuring the Resource Centre. Restructuring may include creating sections for authors and policy makers.

09. Colloquium and networking

09a. Planning for 2015

Colloquium, 2015Background discussion In the absence of a venue and date for the 2015 Colloquium, we will revert to the

earlier SG decision to hold a colloquium every second year. (see Agenda Item 09, Sub-item 09b.)

Additional training, 2015 Items discussed Campbell’s training programme would be enhanced if a funding and organisational

partner could be found for training workshops in 2015. One model to explore is that of 3ie’s recent Evidence Week in London.

09b. Planning for 2016

Campbell Colloquium, October 2016 Holding the next colloquium in 2016 has advantages:

– Longer planning time can allow a more comprehensive, attractive programme– We can work to increase the attendance level– We have the opportunity to pursue additional funding and sponsorship.

We can, in the interim, concentrate on developing our training portfolio.

15 | P a g e

DRAFT An attendance of 250-300 people at Campbell colloquia is a preferred target

Action items, decisions The 2016 Campbell Colloquium will take place in Melbourne, Australia, in association

with the Parenting Resource Centre. The date should not clash with the Cochrane Colloquium (Seoul, 21-25 October).

RM with coordinate the initial preparations. DW will put RM in contact with Professor Lorraine Mazerolle, University of

Queensland, to discuss further potential sources of funding

Campbell Colloquium, 2018: Background: The possibility of again holding a joint Colloquium with Cochrane in 2018 should be

pursued.

09c. Partner organisations, networking

SFI MD (SFI) provided an overview of SFI Campbell, which has developed as a production

unit for Reviews. They have a good working relationship with Campbell CGs, and there are currently 11 Campbell reviews in production.

SFI has five doctoral researchers working on Campbell SRs, all with a PhD. There is keen interest in further training.

An MoU should be considered given the level of SFI’s engagement with Campbell and further negotiations should be considered

We should examine the possibility of funding through the Nordic Council, in consultation also with our Swedish contacts.

Public accessIssues/topics discussed According to our Governance Plan, SG meetings are open. Attendance does not

provide the right to speak unless asked. In accordance with our Governance Plan, Cochrane can attend our SG meetings. We routinely invite representatives of Scandinavian partners to meetings in Oslo.

Establishment of Campbell CentresIssues/topics discussed EN noted that Andreas Beelmann has enquired about the establishment of a German

Campbell Centre. The Governance Plan refers to partnership organisations but not to Campbell Centres.

16 | P a g e

DRAFT The first level of engagement in Campbell is that of a partner organisation. The status

of a Centre could still be considered, following approval by the Steering Group. Centres within particular national jurisdictions can also be considered. The core function of Cochrane Centres is to promote and represent the Cochrane

Collaboration; serve as a source of information about Cochrane; provide training & support for review authors; assist in identifying funding; and mediate in conflicts either between Cochrane entities or individuals.

Cochrane Centres also contribute to improving the quality of Cochrane reviews by performing support activities or promoting methodology research; and help to ensure accessibility to the Cochrane library by pursuing national subscriptions and translations where necessary. The Centres also conduct and submit search results conducted in local areas to the Cochrane Centre.

09d. Campbell Awards 2015

Issues/topics discussed There was consensus that our awards should be issued this year, even though there

will not be a Colloquium. Winners could be invited to a Steering Group meeting in Dublin or Vienna in 2015. We need to work on the identification of suitable nominees. All CGs should actively

seek suitable candidates. Nominations should be spread across the CGs, across nationalities, and include

women. As a rule, current members of the Steering Group should not be considered eligible.

Action items Each CG should submit a name in each category. A shortlist of 6 nominees per prize is

ideal. The task of managing the process is now allocated to the Secretariat, which will

encourage more active CG participation. The Secretariat will forward nominations to a vetting panel comprising ML, AB and AS, and JV (participation to be confirmed).

A shortlist will be forwarded the Steering Group for decision. The Steering Group decision should be made at least two months ahead of the event

at which the awards will be presented.

09e. MoU Chinese translations(Reference document: SG14_Draft MoU Chinese translation )

Issues/topics discussed

17 | P a g e

DRAFT Zhenggang Bai of Lanzhou University, China, is planning to translate Policy and

Guidelines for Campbell Systematic Reviews into Chinese. An MoU has been drawn up by the Secretariat to provide a framework for this exercise.

The Governance Plan does not give guidance on the procedure for approval of a memorandum of this kind.

The draft MoU specifies that responsibility for the quality of the translation rests with Zhenggang Bai, who warrants that the translation will preserve the integrity and meaning of the original text. Campbell will not be liable for any claim arising from the quality of the translation.

This is also an opportunity to develop a relationship with Lanzhou University.

Action items Secretariat will contact Juliane Ried to establish what requirements Cochrane has for

translations. Secretariat will liaise with Zhengang Bai to clarify of the details of the translation

process. Decisions

Following clarification of the translation process, the MoU may be circulated for approval by electronic vote.

10. CEO/Secretariat Report

10a. International Secretariat: Financial perspectives for 2015(Reference document: SG15_1401015 Financial perspectives)

The funding framework for the International Secretariat within the Knowledge Centre is likely to be unchanged in 2015.

We will develop our efforts to attract funding to the Campbell Collaboration as a US Foundation.

11. Next SG Meetings – Venues, times

Steering Group Meeting, May 2015:

Decision The next SG meeting will be held in Dublin, Ireland, either before or after the Global

Implementation Conference (26-28 May 2015).Timing

18 | P a g e

DRAFT The Secretariat will arrange a Doodle poll to identify the preferred date.Venue Secretariat to contact Mairead Furlong at Maynooth University (a campus 26 km from

the GIC conference venue) to assess additional venue options. RM to check with GIS to see if facilities can be made available for Campbell Presentations RM, who is on the Advisory Committee of the GIC conference, will discuss the inclusion

of Campbell presentations. Subject areas: MK for C&J; JL for SW; GR, PC for EducationPublicity See Agenda Item 8a, Action Items

Campbell Steering Group Meeting, October 2015Decision: The autumn Steering Group meeting will be held in conjunction with the Cochrane

Colloquium in Vienna from the (4-7 October, 2015), either before or after those dates.Action items The Secretariat will arrange a Doodle poll to identify the preferred date. IS will follow up within Cochrane’s Methods Policy Advisory Group on the commitment

made by Cochrane to involve Campbell in the scientific programme at the Vienna Colloquium.

JL will assist with proposing workshops, symposia and Campbell publicity, including mention of our 15th anniversary.

The Secretariat will follow-up on the possibility of organising a Campbell stand at the Vienna Colloquium.

Campbell Steering Group Meeting, May 2016Decision: The Steering Group meeting in May 2016 will take place in Oslo

19 | P a g e

DRAFT12. Any other business

Thanks were extended to the following: AB, whose term as Co-Chair ends with this meeting. He will continue to attend Steering

Group meetings for the next 18 month, in accordance with the Governance Plan. ML, whose period of ex-officio participation ended with this meeting. AS who is stepping down as Co-Chair of Social Welfare on completion of this term of

office. He will now be working with KTI. Bjørn Tommy Tollånes for his contribution to the Campbell Collaboration over the past

years. EN and SG for organizing this meeting; IS and PT for participating online; and the RBUP

support team for the venue and for technical assistance.

20 | P a g e