Publication of Reviews Synthesizing Child Health Evidence (PORSCHE): a survey of authors to determine factors associated with publication venue

Tags: Poster
Hartling L1, Shave K2, Wingert A1, Thomson D1, Fernandes R3, Williams K4
1Child Health Field, University of Alberta, Canada, 2Alberta Research Center for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Canada, 3Cochrane Child Health Field, Cochrane Portugal, Department of Pediatrics and Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Lisbon Academic Medical Centre, Portugal, 4Child Health Field, University of Melbourne, Australia

Background: The synthesis of high-quality research is vital to ensuring the health and well-being of the world’s children. The Cochrane Child Health Field maintains a register of child-relevant Cochrane Systematic Reviews to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date source of high-quality child health evidence for end users. However, a growing number of systematic reviews (SRs) are being conducted and published outside the Cochrane Library.

Objectives: We conducted a survey of authors who have completed and published child-relevant systematic reviews on the Cochrane Library and in other journals to understand their experiences in preparing and publishing reviews and to determine what factors influence choice of publication venue.

Methods: We created a sample of recently published child-relevant SRs. We identified SRs published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) for the most recent complete year prior to our study (2013; n = 145). We then searched the medical literature and randomly selected the same number of systematic reviews focusing on healthcare interventions published in other journals during the same year. We developed an internet-based survey using REDCap software and contacted the corresponding author of each review via email.

Results: The survey was administered during March and April 2015. Questions asked about: 1) why authors chose to publish their SRs through Cochrane or in other venues; 2) authors’ experiences preparing their SR; 3) whether they would undertake another review either within or outside Cochrane; and 4) the reasoning and experiences of authors who chose dual publication (within and outside Cochrane).

Conclusions: This work will provide insight into authors’ experiences producing and publishing SRs within and outside Cochrane. Findings will also provide insight into how Cochrane’s organizational characteristics currently facilitate, or impede, publication in the CDSR. Ultimately this will help efforts to strengthen the CDSR as a key resource for child health evidence.