Colloquium Policy Advisory Group

Report prepared by Claire Glenton and Steve McDonald, Co-Convenors

Oslo/Melbourne, September 2005

Appendix 1: The CPAG recommends against imposing any particular Colloquium model.

Appendix 2 outlines the implications of a change in Colloquium sponsorship policy, and the CPAG requests the Steering Group’s feedback before any changes are made.

1. MEETINGS AND COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE GROUP

Since April 2005, the Co-Convenors of the Group have had four teleconferences. The Group as a whole has worked via email.

2. LIST OF MEMBERS

Gerd Antes 2008 organiser

Álvaro Nagib Atallah 2007 organiser

Xavier Bonfill 2003 Colloquium organizer

Zbys Fedorowicz CCSG representative

Claire Glenton Co-Convenor; 2002 Colloquium organiser

Sally Green 2005 Colloquium organiser

Jini Hetherington Secretariat representative

Sally Hopewell Methods Group representative

Britta Lang 2008 organiser

Steve McDonald Co-Convenor; 2005 Colloquium organiser

Arne Ohlsson 2004 Colloquium organiser

Jordi Pardo CCSG representative; 2003 Colloquium organizer

Sharon Parker RGC representative

Caroline Rouse 2006 organiser

Bernardo Soares 2007 organiser

Nicola Thornton 2006 organiser

Janet Wale CCNet representative

3. ACTIONS TAKEN BY CPAG

Colloquium models report

The Steering Group has previously suggested that future organisers be encouraged to consider adopting the ‘Stavanger’ model when organising Colloquia, for instance for every other Colloquium. It was generally agreed within the CPAG that decisions regarding the format of future Colloquia rest with the Colloquium organisers, but that they should be encouraged to make use of this shorter, more internal format more often. The CPAG has prepared a document where the advantages and disadvantages of the different models (‘Stavanger’ model, ‘Barcelona’ model, and traditional model) are described (Appendix 1).

Colloquium presentations

Jonathan Ipser from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, has offered to set up a publishing system for Cochrane Colloquium presentations (slideshows and/or full-text of papers) using readily available freeware. The CPAG has discussed this possibility with Dave Booker, and it is generally seen as a promising alternative to uploading presentations on individual centres’ websites. The Melbourne organisers are planning to submit a proposal to the Discretionary Fund to cover the costs of uploading and making available the presentations from the Melbourne Colloquium (c. ₤600).

Colloquium sponsorship policy

See item 5.

4. BUDGET FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR APRIL 2005 TO MARCH 2006

We do not foresee any problems in keeping within the budget of £1,000 that we submitted for the financial year April 2005 to March 2006.

5. POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE POLICY ON COLLOQUIUM SPONSORSHIP

The Colloquium Policy Advisory Group (CPAG) has been asked by the Steering Group to reconsider the policy on sponsorship of colloquia in light of changes to the Collaboration's policy on commercial sponsorship.

The CPAG has prepared a document (Appendix 2) that outlines the implications of a change in Colloquium sponsorship policy. In this document we present the Steering Group with two possible options and ask that the Steering Group responds to this document before any changes are made.

6. FOR DISCUSSION AT CPAG MEETING

At our meeting in Melbourne we propose to discuss and review the mandate of the CPAG. One option under consideration is to expand the mandate so that we not only develop policies but also give advice to future organisers, and take on responsibility for certain shared tasks, such as the publication of presentations/abstracts and the development of Colloquium Manager.
Appendix 1. A comparison of models for Cochrane Colloquia

Document prepared by: Claire Glenton, Steve McDonald, Britta Lang and Jini Hetherington and on behalf of the CPAG

Date: 26 September 2005

The purpose of this document is to raise awareness among future Colloquium organisers of the different Colloquium formats that have been followed. The document aims to:

· summarise the main features of each model

· present the advantages and disadvantages of each model

· suggest approaches for deciding on future Colloquia

The Colloquium Policy Advisory Group (CPAG) report to the Steering Group in 2003 states:

Evaluation of Colloquium models: The Steering Group has suggested that future organisers be encouraged to consider adopting the ‘Stavanger’ model when organising Colloquia, for instance for every other Colloquium. It was generally agreed within the CPAG that decisions regarding the format of future Colloquia rest with the Colloquium organisers, but that they should be encouraged to make use of this shorter, more internal format more often.

The CPAG will prepare a document where the advantages and disadvantages of the different models (‘Stavanger’ model, ‘Barcelona’ model, and traditional model) are described.

Please note this document only discusses the issue of Colloquium formats, not the issue of frequency of Colloquia.

Summary of Colloquia models

	Traditional model	Shorter ‘Stavanger’ model	Longer ‘Barcelona’ model
Target group and objectives	- existing Cochrane contributors - newcomers (national and regional) - people involved in EBM who wouldn’t normally be able to attend Colloquia	- existing Cochrane contributors but no outreach to newcomers - focus on how the contributors can work together to achieve the Collaboration’s aims	- existing Cochrane contributors - newcomers (national and international) - promoting the idea of the Collaboration and use of evidence
Participants	ca. 700	ca. 400	ca. 900
Duration	5 days	4 days	7 days
Structure	Continuous	Continuous	First half: internal focus; second half: external focus
Plenary sessions	One each day, no conflicts with meetings and workshops	One each day, no conflicts with meetings and workshops	Each morning (first half); whole day (second half) in parallel with meetings and workshops
Meet the Entities	Yes	Yes	Yes
Parallel sessions	Yes	No	Yes
Posters	Yes	Yes	Yes
Workshops	Yes	Yes	Yes
Meetings	Dedicated meeting sessions not in conflict with other parts of the programme	Dedicated meeting sessions not in conflict with other parts of the programme	Meeting sessions conflicted with other parts of programme
Satellite events	Yes	No	Yes
Newcomers’ programme	Yes	No	Yes
Social programme	Welcome reception Farewell dinner/party Sporting event on free afternoon Optional events	Welcome reception Farewell dinner/party No free afternoon or sporting event Optional events	Welcome reception Farewell dinner/party Sporting event on free afternoon Optional events

Target Group and Objectives

The Stavanger Model addresses existing members of The Cochrane Collaboration, i.e. members of Cochrane entities, including review authors. It aims primarily to support members of Cochrane entities and to improve networking between entities in order to achieve the Collaboration’s objectives. The Barcelona Model also aims to support Cochrane entities but is designed as a scientific conference in which the achievements and developments of The Cochrane Collaboration are promoted among the scientific community as well as to governments and representatives of the healthcare system in the region in which the Colloquium takes place. The Traditional Model tries to combine both elements equally.

Structure

The Stavanger and Traditional models have a single registration fee and a consistent structure of meetings for the duration of the Colloquium. In the Barcelona Model the first part is given mainly to internal Cochrane issues and meetings, while the second part is designed to attract a wider audience without an in-depth knowledge of Cochrane activities. The Barcelona Model has two registration fees.

Newcomers’ Programme

The Stavanger Model does not include a Newcomers’ Programme because the presumed audience is made up of experienced members of The Cochrane Collaboration. The Traditional and Barcelona models include a Newcomers’ Programme, as one target of the conference is to raise the profile of the Collaboration and recruit new contributors.

Advantages and disadvantages of different models

Traditional model

Advantages

scientific programme designed to attract those more broadly involved in evidence based health care (especially local policy makers and clinicians) who would not normally attend Colloquia outside their own country/region
more impact nationally and an opportunity to raise the profile of the Collaboration
inclusion of parallel sessions provides opportunities to hear of new methodological developments

Disadvantages

difficulty of achieving the right balance between the needs of internal and external audiences
12 month gap between Colloquia may be too short a lead-time for new work
requires a large enough venue to accommodate full range of workshops and meetings

Stavanger model

Advantages

shorter time away from home/work
opportunity to focus on issue(s) of direct relevance to the Collaboration
dedicated time for internal meetings
easier for new contributors in particular to meet Cochrane colleagues and feel a sense of belonging in the organisation
potentially lower cost for the organisers because a smaller venue is required (but still need access to lots of meeting rooms)
fewer delegates provides more flexibility in terms of venues (e.g. universities)
lower registration fee for delegates

Disadvantages

potential difficulty for delegates to obtain funding (especially for methodologists and non-entity staff) because of fewer opportunities to present
internal focus is less attractive for potential sponsors and funders
possibly a less attractive proposition for Colloquium organisers, especially for non-English speaking countries where the Collaboration is not well known

Barcelona model

Advantages

adequate time to meet the needs of both internal and external audiences because of the split format

Disadvantages

higher registration and accommodation costs
extra days away from home/work - for Cochrane people the usual schedule of meetings and workshops etc is spread over seven rather than four or five days

Options for future Colloquia

Until now the remit of the Steering Group has been simply to approve offers to organise Colloquia, without requiring any indication of the format or length of Colloquium being planned. Since Colloquia are unique events that reflect the objectives of the organisers, decisions regarding their format and length have always rested with the local organisers. Organisers also bear ultimate financial liability.

The CPAG therefore recommends against imposing any particular Colloquium model.

However, when offers to host a Colloquium are submitted to the Steering Group, it would be helpful to provide them with this document and to ask them to indicate what Colloquium model they are proposing to adopt.

Appendix 2. Revision of the Colloquium Sponsorship Policy

Current policy

In the current policy, sponsorship from commercial sources (as defined in the Collaboration’s general policy on commercial sponsorship) is allowed under the following circumstances:

1. where funds are contributed to ‘generic’ Colloquium funds (i.e. pooled with funds from other sources) and not tied to specific sessions or events;

2. for the provision of general services such as translation, printing and food, and the sponsorship of social events.

Commercial sources are prohibited from sponsoring scientific sessions or having any influence over the selection and/or prioritisation of the scientific content of the Colloquium.

Revised policy

The CPAG has considered the implications of adopting a Colloquium sponsorship policy that is consistent with the Collaboration's policy. The main implication of adopting such a policy would be that sponsorship of Colloquia by any commercial source or sources (as defined in the Collaboration’s general policy on commercial sponsorship) would be prohibited.

The CPAG is concerned that the exclusion of commercial sponsors will lead to:

1. serious financial problems for Colloquium organisers based in low- and middle-income countries or based in non-English speaking countries where extra costs tied to translation are incurred;

2. higher registration fees, thus discouraging participants from low- and middle-income countries.

One consequence therefore of prohibiting all commercial sponsorship is the likelihood that the hosting of and participation in future Colloquia will be restricted to well-resourced English-speaking countries.

There was agreement that commercial sources should not be permitted to advertise in the Colloquium programme, exhibit as part of any Colloquium exhibition, or distribute free gifts (although acknowledgement of sponsorship would be included in the Colloquium programme).

Recommendation

Colloquium organisers for 2006, 2007 and 2008 have already been identified, and these organisers have planned their Colloquia with existing policies in mind. We therefore recommend that any major changes to the sponsorship policy are phased in and come into force with the 2009 Colloquium.

[This has already been agreed to.]

For consideration by the Steering Group

As a long-term solution, we ask the Steering Group to consider the following options:

1. The present Colloquium sponsorship policy is kept unchanged beyond 2008 (with the exception of prohibiting commercial sources from advertising in the Colloquium programme, exhibiting in any exhibition and distributing free gifts, which can come into force immediately).

2. The present Colloquium sponsorship policy is updated to reflect the Collaboration’s position of prohibiting all commercial sponsorship (as defined in the Collaboration’s general policy on commercial sponsorship). If option 2, either central funding or a guarantee against financial losses is provided to Colloquium organisers. A figure of 15% has been suggested as an appropriate level of central funding. As a guide, this would amount to about ₤50,000 based on this year’s Colloquium.

Claire Glenton and Steve McDonald

Co-Convenors, Colloquium Policy Advisory Group

26 September 2005