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

The Cochrane Library

Strengths and weaknesses

Design, search, features

Key user groups

Prioritization & customization

Range of databasesUser experience

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

Ways to improve:• searching experience• article-level experience• website• new types of content (eg reader resources

and commentaries for Cochrane Reviews).

Experience of using CLIB (%)Very poorQuite poorQuite goodVery goodDon’t know

Why not?• content is not consumer-friendly• access difficulties• poor readability• poor search functionality

Recommend to friends or colleagues (%)

YesNo

Key user groups

Those that use the content to inform healthcare decisions

1. Clinicians and healthcare workers2. Researchers (including information specialists

and guideline developers)3. Students4. Consumers (including patients and carers)5. 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 customising355 = no 51%347 = yes 49%

2

Select your location

2

Range of databases

5

Integrating and cross-linking databases

6

Website designLook and feel

Reducing offline time and technical faults

Index content Link similar content Link to external content

Navigation Search

Cochrane universe

3

Priorities for The Cochrane Library

• Maintain reputation for quality• Make it easier for people to access content• Maintain the independence of Cochrane Reviews (eg

free from conflicted funding)• Increasing awareness of Cochrane• improve relevance and coverage of Cochrane Reviews• Keep content up to date• Continue to improve the website, including utilising

technological advances

8

High-quality content

Make content accessible

Enable it to be used

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

What is valued

Topic coverage

Types of articles Non-English language users

Meeting needs?

Low- and middle-income countries

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Most valued

Scientific rigour

Independence from

commercial funding

Comprehensive topic coverage

Updating of Cochrane Reviews

How well are Cochrane Reviews addressing priorities and needs?

87% = good jobBut...could improve

9 to 12

How we prioritize topicsSummaries

Presentation of individual article 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

14

Translate key sections

Develop search interfaces for other languages Web-based

translation services

Signpost translated content

Coverage of healthcare topics

1

22

355

245

Overall coverage (no.)

Very poorQuite poorQuite goodVery good

No rec, but further work

DiverticulitisHyperthyroidism *2Abnormal liver function tests - differential diagnosis *1Anemia - differential diagnosis *1Gout *2HyponatremiaDizziness - differential diagnosis *1Abdominal pain - differential diagnosis *1Celiac disease

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”

Types of articles

Strong desire for the CDSR to include other article types:– registered review titles (ie reviews in

development)– methodological articles– commentaries

15

CommentaryAsdfdsff 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

16

• 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?

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 1Rec no. Recommendation3 ...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 2Rec no. Recommendation13 …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 3Rec no. Recommendation1 … 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 4Rec no. Recommendation15 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?