Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: The Cochrane Collaboration is committed to consumer involvement. One Collaborative Review established an international consumer panel in 1998 to involve consumers as referees in the editorial process. By 2004, there were over 50 consumers from 10 countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, UK and USA) involved with the consumer panel, along with three co-ordinators, one in the UK, USA and Australia. Since early 1999, consumers have commented on all protocols and reviews in the editorial process (amounting to over 400), and the group was keen to evaluate their impact.
Objective: To determine how consumers view their contribution to systematic reviews of a Cochrane Collaborative Review Group and to seek their views on improving the process.
Methods: The study was undertaken by an independent researcher who used a short questionnaire to identify consumers with diverse views for in-depth interviews. As part of a larger study, five consumers and the three consumer coordinators were interviewed. The aim was to find out how they felt about the editorial processes used and their perceptions of the impact of their input on the quality of reviews. The main issues, impressions and themes from each interview were summarised, and the resulting data explored to identify common themes. (Interviews with editors and review authors are reported elsewhere).
Results: Consumers and consumer co-ordinators were highly motivated and believed that consumer input would improve the quality of Cochrane Reviews if utilised, but they were not always sure about whether editors and authors incorporated the consumer feedback. Consumers suggested some key areas for improvement:
1. Opportunities for training: including explanation of the consumer role and its effect, and skill development in critical appraisal.
2. Improved communication and feedback: such as regular newsletters, opportunities to discuss issues with other consumers, and copies of the published protocol and/or review.
3. Targeted information and support, including individualised induction packs and access to mentors.
Conclusions: This project identified key issues that arise from consumer involvement in Cochrane reviews. Consumer suggestions have contributed to the development of guidelines for consumer involvement in the Cochrane systematic review process.
Objective: To determine how consumers view their contribution to systematic reviews of a Cochrane Collaborative Review Group and to seek their views on improving the process.
Methods: The study was undertaken by an independent researcher who used a short questionnaire to identify consumers with diverse views for in-depth interviews. As part of a larger study, five consumers and the three consumer coordinators were interviewed. The aim was to find out how they felt about the editorial processes used and their perceptions of the impact of their input on the quality of reviews. The main issues, impressions and themes from each interview were summarised, and the resulting data explored to identify common themes. (Interviews with editors and review authors are reported elsewhere).
Results: Consumers and consumer co-ordinators were highly motivated and believed that consumer input would improve the quality of Cochrane Reviews if utilised, but they were not always sure about whether editors and authors incorporated the consumer feedback. Consumers suggested some key areas for improvement:
1. Opportunities for training: including explanation of the consumer role and its effect, and skill development in critical appraisal.
2. Improved communication and feedback: such as regular newsletters, opportunities to discuss issues with other consumers, and copies of the published protocol and/or review.
3. Targeted information and support, including individualised induction packs and access to mentors.
Conclusions: This project identified key issues that arise from consumer involvement in Cochrane reviews. Consumer suggestions have contributed to the development of guidelines for consumer involvement in the Cochrane systematic review process.
PDF