Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Cochrane has explicit goals and targets involving the identification, production and publication of priority reviews. Not only should Cochrane Groups engage in formal consultations to identify relevant and important questions for Cochrane Reviews, but the subsequent production and updating of these reviews must also be prioritised. Cochrane also has broader goals around advocating for evidence, making our evidence accessible and timely, and engaging with, and involving our stakeholders. These have far-reaching implications for Cochrane Groups once priority topics have been identified. In 2015/16 Cochrane Consumers and Communication (CCC) undertook a comprehensive priority setting project, resulting in five priority topics.
Our experience of producing priority reviews: The production of priority reviews requires clear guidance to inform what a priority review will mean for authors and the editorial team. Our priority authors are strongly encouraged to co-create their reviews and dissemination plans with consumers and relevant others, and pursue strategic partnerships with policy makers. We will provide a high level of support to priority teams, including methods support, along with resources/advice about consumer involvement, and assistance planning knowledge translation activities. We are currently exploring how to structure and support a fast track editorial process and preparing an updating policy (including the feasibility of living reviews). Further work is planned, exploring how to respond to priorities best answered by review types (i.e. implementation reviews) or data sources (i.e. patient experience surveys) that are currently outside Cochrane’s remit.
Conclusions: The production of priority Cochrane Reviews requires Cochrane to revisit the way in which it engages with author teams and relevant stakeholders, and its editorial processes. Our experience suggests Review Groups may need to operate in different ways, and seek more active engagement with stakeholders throughout the evidence to practice pipeline to ensure these relevant and important topics translate into improvements in health.
Our experience of producing priority reviews: The production of priority reviews requires clear guidance to inform what a priority review will mean for authors and the editorial team. Our priority authors are strongly encouraged to co-create their reviews and dissemination plans with consumers and relevant others, and pursue strategic partnerships with policy makers. We will provide a high level of support to priority teams, including methods support, along with resources/advice about consumer involvement, and assistance planning knowledge translation activities. We are currently exploring how to structure and support a fast track editorial process and preparing an updating policy (including the feasibility of living reviews). Further work is planned, exploring how to respond to priorities best answered by review types (i.e. implementation reviews) or data sources (i.e. patient experience surveys) that are currently outside Cochrane’s remit.
Conclusions: The production of priority Cochrane Reviews requires Cochrane to revisit the way in which it engages with author teams and relevant stakeholders, and its editorial processes. Our experience suggests Review Groups may need to operate in different ways, and seek more active engagement with stakeholders throughout the evidence to practice pipeline to ensure these relevant and important topics translate into improvements in health.