Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: A 2013 survey of 64 Cochrane authors in the South African Cochrane Centre (SACC) reference countries identified limited time and financial constraints as the main barriers to completing reviews. These findings informed a new training strategy to support authors through fellowships for dedicated time to work on their reviews.
Objectives: To assess the progress of authors who received fellowships to complete or update their reviews.
Methods: Authors in SACC reference countries could apply for fellowships. Eligible authors required a published protocol or a review update due, with identification and selection of studies completed. The five-day programme consisted mainly of time to work on reviews, with short daily methods sessions, ongoing support from Centre and associated staff, and linking with Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs). Participants completed a timeline that the SACC uses for regular follow-up, for project management and to provide additional support, if necessary.
Results: We hosted three fellowships in 2014, with a total of 16 lead authors and 10 co-authors, representing 11 CRGs. Participant feedback was positive. Factors enabling authors to progress with their reviews included: dedicated time, ongoing technical and methodological support, ability to work in author teams and liaising with CRGs to solve immediate issues. Seven of 16 lead authors submitted reviews for peer review (Table 1). The remaining five authors who had planned to submit by February 2015 have not adhered to their timelines. Reasons include lack of dedicated time when back at work; delays in feedback from co-authors; and underestimating time required to dedicate to the review. Of those that submitted for peer review, additional issues include peer review process delays.
Conclusions: Providing fellowships for Cochrane authors to have dedicated time to work on their reviews is an effective strategy for review progress. However, further active support is required post-fellowship as authors continue to experience similar time-management problems.
Objectives: To assess the progress of authors who received fellowships to complete or update their reviews.
Methods: Authors in SACC reference countries could apply for fellowships. Eligible authors required a published protocol or a review update due, with identification and selection of studies completed. The five-day programme consisted mainly of time to work on reviews, with short daily methods sessions, ongoing support from Centre and associated staff, and linking with Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs). Participants completed a timeline that the SACC uses for regular follow-up, for project management and to provide additional support, if necessary.
Results: We hosted three fellowships in 2014, with a total of 16 lead authors and 10 co-authors, representing 11 CRGs. Participant feedback was positive. Factors enabling authors to progress with their reviews included: dedicated time, ongoing technical and methodological support, ability to work in author teams and liaising with CRGs to solve immediate issues. Seven of 16 lead authors submitted reviews for peer review (Table 1). The remaining five authors who had planned to submit by February 2015 have not adhered to their timelines. Reasons include lack of dedicated time when back at work; delays in feedback from co-authors; and underestimating time required to dedicate to the review. Of those that submitted for peer review, additional issues include peer review process delays.
Conclusions: Providing fellowships for Cochrane authors to have dedicated time to work on their reviews is an effective strategy for review progress. However, further active support is required post-fellowship as authors continue to experience similar time-management problems.