workshop presentation - Cochrane Editorial Unit

Report
Workshop: Themes 1 & 2
Theme 1. The Cochrane Library: continuing its
development as the world’s leading library of
evidence
Theme 2. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews (CDSR): relevance, coverage, and user
experience
Strengths and weaknesses
User experience
Range of databases
The Cochrane Library
Design, search, features
Prioritization & customization
Key user groups
What do you like best about The Cochrane Library?
Strengths
• quality of the Cochrane Reviews and content
• access to content (“easy & free accessibility”)
• coverage and comprehensiveness of content
(“comprehensive source of knowledge”)
• concept, reputation, independence associated with
Cochrane (“Excellent reputation, transparent, robust,
good coverage”)
• website (eg “Colourful, lively front page”)
Weaknesses
• search functionality (“trying to search using MeSH or natural
language terms – I never know if I am getting everything”)
• access to content (“not all the reviews are available for every
reader in the library”)
• readability or article design (“format of reviews is too long,
unfriendly to busy readers”)
• website (“the lack of clarity on the front page – you really
have to know a lot about Cochrane already to make head or
tail of it”)
• topic coverage, including how topics are divided between
Cochrane Reviews (“Many reviews are too large, and in
contrast many cover too small a question”).
1& 3
Experience of using CLIB
Experience of using CLIB (%)
Very poor
Quite poor
Quite good
Very good
Recommend to friends or
colleagues (%)
Yes
No
Ways to improve:
• searching experience
• article-level experience
• website
• new types of content (eg reader
resources and commentaries for
Cochrane Reviews).
Why not?
• content is not consumer-friendly
• access difficulties
• poor readability
• poor search functionality
Key user groups
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Those that use the content to
inform healthcare decisions
Clinicians and healthcare workers
Researchers (including information specialists
and guideline developers)
Students
Consumers (including patients and carers)
Policy-makers
Other groups are important too
• Knowledge translation and dissemination
– via media outlets, journalists, and bloggers to global
audiences
• Content ‘repackaging’
– via database providers, policy-setting bodies, and
others
• Providing access to content by purchasing
institutional, regional, and national licences to
The Cochrane Library
• Providing funding for the preparation of
Cochrane content
Prioritising and customising
355 = no 51%
347 = yes 49%
2
Select your location
2
Range of databases
5
Integrating and cross-linking databases
6
Website design
Look and feel
Index content
Link similar content
Navigation
Link to external content
Search
Reducing offline time and technical faults
Cochrane universe
3
Priorities for The Cochrane Library
• Maintain reputation for quality
• Make it easier for people to access content
High-quality content
• Maintain the independence
of Cochrane Reviews
(eg free from conflicted funding)
Make content
accessible
• Increasing awareness
of Cochrane
• improve relevance and coverage of Cochrane
Enable it to be used
Reviews
• Keep content up to date
• Continue to improve the website, including
utilising technological advances
8
What is valued
Topic coverage
Meeting needs?
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Types of articles
Non-English language users
Low- and middle-income countries
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Scientific
rigour
Comprehensive
topic coverage
Most valued
Independence
from
commercial
funding
Updating of
Cochrane
Reviews
How well are Cochrane Reviews
addressing priorities and needs?
87% = good job
But...could improve
How we prioritize topics
Summaries
Presentation of
individual article
9 to 12
How we promote the use
of Cochrane Reviews
Low- and middle-income countries
Prominence:
– Prioritise and
highlight
– Setting and context
13
Access:
– Improve access
– Mobile phones
– Internet bandwidth
– Translation
Non-English language users
Translation strategy
Translate key sections
Develop search interfaces
for other languages
14
Signpost translated
content
Web-based
translation services
Coverage of healthcare topics
Overall coverage (no.)
1
22
Very poor
245
Quite poor
Quite good
355
No rec, but further work
Very good
DynaMed: of 500 most frequently viewed topics in DynaMed, 81
topics (16%) with no Cochrane Review
“shows a strong breadth of coverage for The Cochrane Collaboration”
Diverticulitis
Hyperthyroidism *2
Abnormal liver function tests - differential
diagnosis *1
Anemia - differential diagnosis *1
Gout *2
Hyponatremia
Dizziness - differential diagnosis *1
Abdominal pain - differential diagnosis *1
Celiac disease
Types of articles
Strong desire for the CDSR to include other
article types:
– registered review titles (ie reviews in
development)
– methodological articles
– commentaries
15
Commentary
Asdfdsff jadldjf
;adflkkjdf ;ajsdlj ;lajf
adfa fjlkjsdf ;asfd
aljf aljdf alsjfj aljsdf
a;lsjdf aljfd alldf
ljsdf;asdfj a;lkjf
ooieujsdf a;ljsdf
;aljsdfjalk ;asfl ;asflj
Visual presentation and user
experience of Cochrane articles
• Make key messages clearer
• Improve readability (including making
Cochrane Reviews more concise)
• Improve the article format to make it more
user-friendly and easier to navigate
• Easier to print
• help users differentiate the three PDF versions
10
Article metrics
• Use in guidelines
• Number of citations
for the Cochrane
Review (eg number of
times cited in
PubMed Central or
Google Scholar)
•Article access
statistics (eg number
of times review
viewed)
•Social bookmarking
metrics?
16
Timely publication
• 2010 moved from quarterly to monthly
• 2013 move to publish when ready?
17
High-quality, high-impact content
Web presentation
Dissemination and knowledge translation
Small groups
Group 1
Rec no. Recommendation
3
...improving The Cochrane Library website ...
10
...article-level display of Cochrane Reviews...
•The survey showed that our users like website best and least.
What are the specific positives and negatives that they could
be referring to, and what do you think?
•Are there any specific changes you would like to see to CLIB
(feel free to draw!)?
•Some of our users think CLIB = Cochrane Reviews. Do you
think this should be reflected in the design? If so, how?
Group 2
Rec no. Recommendation
13
…improve how we meet the needs of readers and
users from low- and middle-income countries…
14
…meet the needs of non-English language users…
•How would you like to see this happen (also considering
technology developments, eg semantic web)?
•For access, Appendix 5 may be useful
Group 3
Rec no. Recommendation
1
… access options for The Cochrane Library …
11
Promote the use of Cochrane Reviews …
•What are the issues around access that need to be
considered? (Refer to Appendix 5)
•Think about working with health organizations
Group 4
Rec no. Recommendation
15
Expand the range of article types…
7
…added-value features …
•How could we make the added-value features more useful
and increase awareness? (Refer to Appendix 6)
Tasks
• General questions for discussion:
– Does the recommendation cover what you expect it to
cover?
– Is it achievable?
– Suggestions and ideas for implementation?
– Does it need to further consultation? With who?
• For reporting back:
– What do you want to record for us to take away?
– What key points (eg 3 key points) would you want to
report back to the plenary?

similar documents