Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The Cochrane Collaboration aims to assist people to make evidence-based decisions about health care and public health by developing and maintaining comprehensive, regularly updated systematic reviews. Policy makers decide how best to allocate resources, to maximize the impact of public health and health-care investments. Collaboration between researchers and policy makers can provide evidence to inform judgments about funding and resource allocations, for which policy makers are accountable. The Cochrane Collaborative Review Group on HIV Infection and AIDS (Cochrane HIV/AIDS Group) has linked with U.S. and international organizations in an effort to inform HIV/AIDS policy makers.
Methods: The Cochrane HIV/AIDS Group has undertaken three initiatives to inform policy makers. (1) In 2000, we were asked by U.S. Office of Minority Health to conduct a series of reviews of interventions addressing HIV prevention among minority populations in the United States, populations for which interventions are desperately needed. (2) In 2002, we were asked by the World Health Organization (WHO) to conduct a series of reviews of antiretroviral drugs (ARV) in combination therapy for treating HIV/AIDS, which would inform deliberations considering the addition of these drugs to the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. (3) In 2003, we were asked by the Milbank Memorial Fund and the Council on Foreign Relations to prepare an evidence assessment on effective interventions for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care, with a particular focus on research in resource-constrained settings. The assessment was requested for use in a report from the Council and the Fund to the U.S. Government on the importance of using the best evidence in spending the new Presidential Emergency Program for AIDS Relief.
Results: We produced three reviews of HIV prevention interventions among U.S. minority populations and are now translating the findings for use by program planners in health departments and community-based organizations. We produced eight reviews of ARV drugs in combination therapy, which WHO used to inform its decision to include these drugs in their two most recent Model Lists of Essential Medicines. We analyzed more than 60 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of high methodological quality to create an evidence assessment of HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care interventions, which is now being circulated in the U.S. Congress and among other top U.S. policy makers.
Conclusions: Cochrane reviews are being recognized in the U.S. and international AIDS communities as a reliable and crucial resource. Several challenges exist to most effectively answer the call of policy makers, namely the lack of studies (or data within studies) to answer many questions of interest to policy makers; the short turnaround time to produce documents; and the lack of dedicated staff to work on these requests. To address these issues we are working at the national and international levels to encourage researchers to present sufficient data for thorough data synthesis; we are building staff time into future funding requests in order to produce, maintain and update these policy documents; and we continue to work with policy makers to produce documents that most effectively translate our findings.
Methods: The Cochrane HIV/AIDS Group has undertaken three initiatives to inform policy makers. (1) In 2000, we were asked by U.S. Office of Minority Health to conduct a series of reviews of interventions addressing HIV prevention among minority populations in the United States, populations for which interventions are desperately needed. (2) In 2002, we were asked by the World Health Organization (WHO) to conduct a series of reviews of antiretroviral drugs (ARV) in combination therapy for treating HIV/AIDS, which would inform deliberations considering the addition of these drugs to the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines. (3) In 2003, we were asked by the Milbank Memorial Fund and the Council on Foreign Relations to prepare an evidence assessment on effective interventions for HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care, with a particular focus on research in resource-constrained settings. The assessment was requested for use in a report from the Council and the Fund to the U.S. Government on the importance of using the best evidence in spending the new Presidential Emergency Program for AIDS Relief.
Results: We produced three reviews of HIV prevention interventions among U.S. minority populations and are now translating the findings for use by program planners in health departments and community-based organizations. We produced eight reviews of ARV drugs in combination therapy, which WHO used to inform its decision to include these drugs in their two most recent Model Lists of Essential Medicines. We analyzed more than 60 systematic reviews and meta-analyses of high methodological quality to create an evidence assessment of HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care interventions, which is now being circulated in the U.S. Congress and among other top U.S. policy makers.
Conclusions: Cochrane reviews are being recognized in the U.S. and international AIDS communities as a reliable and crucial resource. Several challenges exist to most effectively answer the call of policy makers, namely the lack of studies (or data within studies) to answer many questions of interest to policy makers; the short turnaround time to produce documents; and the lack of dedicated staff to work on these requests. To address these issues we are working at the national and international levels to encourage researchers to present sufficient data for thorough data synthesis; we are building staff time into future funding requests in order to produce, maintain and update these policy documents; and we continue to work with policy makers to produce documents that most effectively translate our findings.