Minutes of meeting of the
Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group,
Stavanger, Norway, 31 July and 3 August 2002
[These minutes were approved by the Steering Group Executive on 14 October 2002]
Subject |
Item |
Adverse events, inclusion of information on, in Cochrane Reviews |
|
Advisory Group, CENTRAL/CCTR |
|
[Advisory] Group, Cochrane Library Users’ |
|
Advisory Group, Colloquium Policy |
|
Advisory Group, Criticism Management |
|
Advisory Group, Handbook |
|
Advisory Group, Information Management System |
|
Advisory Group, Quality |
|
Annual General Meetings |
|
Arbiter/Ombudsman, Publication |
|
Campbell Collaboration, liaison |
|
CENTRAL, budget from the New England Cochrane Center for |
|
Centre, French Cochrane |
|
Centre Directors, feedback from meeting in Stavanger |
|
Centres, responsibilities of Directors and staff |
|
Chief Executive Officer, recruitment of |
|
Chris Silagy Prize and Fund |
|
Cochrane Reviews, change of citation for ISI indexing purposes |
|
Cochrane Reviews, costs of producing individual |
|
Cochrane Reviews, duplication of effort resulting from outcome-specific |
|
Cochrane Reviews, funding |
|
Cochrane Reviews, inclusion of adverse events in |
|
Cochrane Reviews, inclusion of safety warnings in |
|
Cochrane Reviews, intellectual property rights of synopses |
|
Cochrane Reviews, referral of non-standard titles |
|
Colloquium, 2004 (Ottawa) |
|
Colloquium, 2005 (Melbourne) |
|
Conflict resolution |
|
Consumer health information system |
|
Consumer Network representatives having access to their constituents |
|
Contingency Fund expenditure |
|
Co-ordinating Editors, feedback from meeting in Stavanger |
|
Developing countries’ involvement in the Cochrane Collaboration |
|
Discretionary Fund expenditure |
|
Electoral process, proposal for changes |
|
EMBASE, cost of licensing records |
|
Entity funding |
|
Entity representatives communicating with their constituents |
|
Fields, feedback from meeting in Stavanger |
|
Finance, Contingency and Discretionary Fund expenditure |
|
Finance, revised funding priorities |
|
Finance, use of Collaboration funds for entities in crisis |
|
French Cochrane Centre |
|
Funders’ Forum |
|
History of the Cochrane Collaboration |
|
Information Management System, proposal for development of |
|
Intellectual property rights – synopses |
|
International organisations, strategic alliances |
|
ISI indexing, citation format for Cochrane Reviews |
|
Medibank, inaccurate statement on the web site |
|
Methods Groups, feedback from meeting in Stavanger |
|
Monitoring and Registration Group, report and budget |
|
Monitoring of entities, feedback from Quality Improvement Manager |
|
Needs Assessment Survey |
|
Ombudsman |
|
Ombudsman/Arbiter, Publication |
|
Publishing, new arrangement for |
|
Publishing Policy Group |
|
Quality Improvement Manager, report and recommendations |
|
RGCs/TSCs, feedback from meeting in Stavanger |
|
Secretariat, recruitment of a Chief Executive Officer |
|
Steering Group, comments from outgoing members |
|
Steering Group, costs of meetings |
|
Steering Group, electoral process, proposal for changes to |
|
Steering Group, membership of sub- and advisory groups |
|
Steering Group, mid-year meeting, 2003 (Australia) |
|
Steering Group, mid-year meeting, 2004 (Italy) |
|
Steering Group, monitoring the |
|
Steering Group, outstanding action items |
|
Steering Group, reimbursement of expenses |
|
Strategic Plan |
|
Strategic Plan, revised |
|
Synopses, intellectual property rights |
|
Treasurer, report and financial statements to 31 March 2002 |
Minutes of the meeting of the
Cochrane Collaboration Steering Group
Stavanger, Norway,
31 July and 3 August 2002
Present:
This item had been deferred from the Steering Group meeting in Chengdu in April 2002. A document summarising various issues relating to the electoral process was discussed. These issues included:
27.1 A possible succession plan for the Chair of the Steering Group. There is a constitutional mechanism for appointing a Chair from outside the Steering Group, in the event that there is no suitable candidate for Chair on the existing Steering Group.
27.2 The requirement that members step down from the Steering Group after two consecutive three-year terms (agreed in February 2002).
27.3 In the event of a tie between two candidates in a Steering Group election, the Steering Group would be asked to vote.
27.4 A number of items in the document highlighted the need to revise the constitution of the Collaboration. Mike agreed to take this forward so that the Steering Group can discuss suggested revisions to the constitution at their next meeting in Melbourne in March 2003.
Action: Mike
Davina will revise the electoral process document in the light of discussion during this meeting. It will then be sent to the Secretariat to arrange for it to be put onto the Collaboration web site.
Action: Davina
28. Use of Collaboration funds for entities in crisis
Kathie declared her potential conflict as a member of a Centre facing a possible financial crisis. The Steering Group agreed that it would be extremely difficult to formulate a sensible and equitable policy on criteria for using Collaboration funds for entities in crisis.
29. Funding, sponsorship, and insurance of Colloquia: Kathie advised that the Colloquium Policy Advisory Group had discussed these issues, and that she and Xavier Bonfill would be preparing draft sponsorship guidelines for the CPAG in September.
Action: Kathie
30. Strategy for forming alliances with international organisations
Since there was no background document on this issue, no discussion took place, due to lack of time.
31. Feedback from various entity meetings during the Colloquium
31.1 Co-ordinating Editors: The suggestion of the Collaboration having a Publication Ombudsman was raised at the joint meeting of Co-ordinating Editors, Review Group Co-ordinators and Trials Search Co-ordinators (see item 13 above). Overlap of review titles was also discussed, and a strong request was made to allow dual publication of the same review by more than one Collaborative Review Group (CRG), to allow two or more CRGs to receive credit for work done on a particular review: it was thought that this might dissolve disagreements between CRGs over reviews that fall within the scope of more than one CRG. Investigation of whether it would be feasible to implement this suggestion needs to be deferred until a new publishing arrangement has been made. Peter T. reported that the Co-ordinating Editors had agreed that they need a full-day meeting during the next Colloquium, some part of it jointly with Review Group Co-ordinators and Trials Search Co-ordinators. He should convey this to the organisers of the Barcelona Colloquium as soon as possible.
Action: Peter T.
31.2 Review Group Co-ordinators/Trials Search Co-ordinators: Davina reported that no particular areas of concern or dissatisfaction had arisen during their meeting, which had not been dealt with at other points in the Steering Group meeting.
31.3 Centre Directors: Sally reported that the Centre Directors had had a good meeting, but that it had been too short and the discussion had been rushed. They had agreed that the organisers of the Barcelona Colloquium should be asked to schedule more time next year for this meeting.
Action: Sally
31.4 Methods Groups: Jon reported that this style of Colloquium (with no scientific meeting focussing on methodological issues) does not work well for members of Methods Groups because of difficulties in raising funding to attend meetings without a strong scientific content. Jon said he would be getting together a small group of people to suggest better ways of communicating in future, both among the Methods Groups and with other entities. He would also work with Nancy Owens to tailor her forthcoming interviews with Methods Groups, to ensure that questions are appropriate to their special situation. A Qualitative Research Methods Group is preparing to apply to register as a formal entity with the Collaboration. The issue of reviews of diagnostic tests is still current, and Jon was asked to make recommendations as to the feasibility of creating a database of these.
Action: Jon, Nancy
31.5 Fields: Vittorio reported that this kind of smaller scale, inward-looking Colloquium seems to be appreciated by members of Fields. He advised that discussion is underway as to the core function of Fields, and that a proposed Occupational Health Field had a preliminary meeting during the Colloquium.
31.6 Consumer Network: Silvana raised the question of how to improve direct communication between the two Consumer Network representatives and their constituents, i.e. all members of the Consumer Network. Jim agreed to ask Hilda Bastian how best to enable the elected representatives to achieve this.
Action: Jim, Samuel, Silvana
Samuel reported that discussions on governance of the Consumer Network are underway. Sally agreed to provide feedback to the Executive before their next teleconference in September 2002 on the status of these discussions. It was noted that consumers had recommended that there be more developing country representation on the Steering Group.
Action: Sally
32. Conflict resolution
The Steering Group expressed appreciation of the work that had gone into the materials produced by Gill Gyte on conflict management and resolution. See comments above at item 19.12.
33. Usefulness of spreadsheet of Steering Group members’ outstanding action items
Steering Group members agreed that they found this spreadsheet extremely helpful. They were asked to be prompt about letting Claire know when they have carried out any Action items.
Action: Everyone
34. Thanks to the host
Jim expressed appreciation for a most interesting, enjoyable and well organized Colloquium, and agreed to write a formal letter of thanks to Andy Oxman and his excellent team of organizers on behalf of the Steering Group.
Action: Jim
35. Any other business:
35.1 Chris Silagy Prize, and entity exchange fund: This new prize had been at the wish of Chris Silagy, for people who had made an extraordinary contribution to the work of the Cochrane Collaboration, which would not normally be recognised by other means such as publication of papers, etc. It was noted that the first Chris Silagy Prize had been awarded to Jini Hetherington. As a separate matter, David explained that the idea of establishing an ‘entity exchange fund’ had been suggested after the Prize had been set up, for people such as review group co-ordinators, trials search co-ordinators, administrators, and handsearchers to visit and work in another entity for a brief period of time, at the Collaboration’s expense. David and Sally would be discussing after the Colloquium how to take this forward, and David would report on progress to the Executive in their September teleconference.
Action: David, Sally
35.2 Reviews of adverse effects: This matter had been discussed earlier in the meeting (see item 17).
35.3 Entity feedback on the monitoring process: Nancy agreed to provide the Monitoring and Registration Group with an anonymised list of comprehensive and constructive feedback that she had received during her visits to entities over the past eleven months, for use in reassessing and improving the monitoring process.
Action: Nancy