Two years down, one to go: an NIHR programme grant in numbers




Poster session 2


Monday 24 October 2016 - 15:30 to 16:00


All authors in correct order:

Kew K1, Normansell R1, Milan S2
1 Cochrane Airways, UK
2 Lancaster University, UK
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Kayleigh Kew

Contact person:

Abstract text
Background: Cochrane’s Strategy to 2020 and Production Models place more emphasis than ever on producing priority systematic reviews to a high standard as quickly as possible.

Cochrane Airways started a three-year NIHR programme grant (PG) in May 2014 to produce 25 priority asthma reviews. We presented results of the model at the end of year 1, and have updated and extended the analyses another year on.

Objectives: To assess an NIHR programme grant as a production model.

Methods: We used Archie data to track the 25 titles and conduct analyses of median production and editorial times. We collated data about patient and public involvement (PPI), number and geography of contributing authors, resources, and impact.

Results: All 25 titles have been registered, 24 have progressed to protocol submission, 17 to protocol publication, 14 to review submission, and nine to full publication. Provisional analyses show protocols take a median 1.7 months to prepare and 2.5 months to edit, and full reviews take six and four months. Median time from registration to full publication of the nine published reviews was 12 months.
The grant reviews have involved 47 authors, from the UK (32), Australia (10), Canada (3), Japan (1) and Egypt (1); one from a lower- or middle-income country (LMIC) and 22 who are new to Cochrane. Involving new authors in the north west of England through collaboration with the Lancaster Health Hub has promoted more widespread understanding and application of evidence in an area where health outcomes are among the poorest in the UK.
The grant funds two systematic reviewers (1.0 and 0.2 full time equivalent) plus 0.5 days/week Co-ordinating Editor support.
Reviews incorporated key outcomes and 10 priority questions derived from a PPI asthma workshop (18 participants) and online survey (57 respondents).
There is some evidence of early impact, mostly through guidelines.

Conclusions: The model continues to be an efficient way of producing priority reviews quickly. Resource implications may be a barrier to implementing the model more widely, and improvements are needed to enhance impact and inclusion, especially from authors in LMICs.