Webinar/Conference Call February 27, 2014

Transcription

1 Webinar/Conference Call February 27, 2014

2 Thursday, February 27, :30pm Eastern/ 1:30pm Central/ 12:30pm Mountain/ 11:30am Pacific Presenters: CBPH Caucus Program Planners Larkin Strong Olufunke Akiyode

3 CBPH Caucus Goals: Promote the development and support of community-based public health (CBPH). Identify and enhance the capacity of community-based organizations to address community health issues through CBPH approaches and CBPH partnerships. Promote the understanding and practice of CBPH research, teaching and service. Gather and share information about organizations, programs, funding sources and other resources engaged in promoting CBPH. Promote linkages with organizations (including other APHA caucuses and sections) which share goals with those of this Caucus. Develop and promote policies which support and advance CBPH at all levels and among academic programs, community-based organizations, governmental agencies, and funders of public health programs.

4 Become a Member TODAY: t/membership.html

5 Larkin Strong 2014 Academic Program Planner Assistant Professor University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX Funke Akiyode 2014 Community Program Planner Executive Director, Shout Global Health Largo, MD

6 Goals: To improve the quality and reliability of ratings between reviewers; To provide support to members who may not be familiar with abstract review process. Objectives: Following this presentation, participants will be able to: Recognize APHA with assigned abstracts and online review instructions State the abstract review deadline. Explain steps to take if a reviewer cannot complete reviews by deadline Apply abstract review criteria when conducting abstract reviews Use the review comment section of review Apply guidelines for rating CBPH abstracts Explain what happens after all abstracts are reviewed List tips for maintaining fairness and consistency in reviewing abstracts Recognize who to contact for more information.

7 All of the information presented in this webinar is contained in the CBPH Caucus 2014 Abstract Reviewing Guide This guide can be downloaded from the CBPH Caucus website: (click on Links/Resources)

8 February 14- Abstracts submissions to the CBPH caucus closed. February 14 th Reviewer submission form - Closed Week of February 24- APHA will send out notices to reviewers with instructions on reviewing abstracts online February 24 March 14 Review abstracts

9 Please contact the program planners as soon as possible and no later than March 7 so that your abstracts can be reassigned to other reviewers in a timely fashion!

10 If you identify a conflict of interest Do not perform the review Indicate conflict of interest on form Program planners will be notified You may be assigned to review a different abstract Please be sure there are no conflicts of interest by March 7

11 1. Abstract must be in line with the CBPHC Vision ( abridged) The Community-Based Public Health Caucus is guided by the belief that Community lies at the heart of public health, and that interventions work best when they are rooted in the values, knowledge, expertise, and interests of the community itself. The complete vision is in the abstract review guide or on our website,

12 2. Evidence of community-engaged research or practice (e.g. Community Based Participatory Research, principles followed, partners identified) Well grounded in the science of CBPR means following the basic concepts of CBPR, as outlined by Israel (1997), that include: Recognizing community as a unit of identity Building on strengths and resources Facilitating partnership and capacity building in all phases Disseminating findings and knowledge to all Involving a long-term process and commitment Seeking balance between research and action Ask yourself: Does the abstract contribute to the art and science of CBPR?

13 3. Evidence of the role played in the research or practice by community members impacted by the problem How did community members input, guidance, and feedback impact the decision making for the partnership, project and /or initiatives? Were the community partners involved from planning to implementation when an abstract expresses that their work is CBPR? Is the project community-driven, communityplaced or community- mentioned?

14 4. Scientific strength of the work (e.g. basic research design or assessment methods described and result summarized) Is the purpose of the study, policy, or program clearly described? Are the study questions presented appropriate and feasible in the time permitted? When did the project start? Has this project taken place yet or is it planned to take place after the abstract is written? How do the authors promise to support the conclusions they will present?

15 4. Scientific strength of the work (e.g. basic research design or assessment methods described and results summarized), continued: NOTE: When evaluating program or policy abstracts (i.e. public health practice versus scientific research abstracts), we ask reviewers to consider the differences in the types of methods and results presented when rating abstracts for each evaluation criteria.

16 4. Scientific strength of the work, continued: Research Abstract: Is the approach and/or methodology described? Is the methodological framework consistent with the study questions of concern? Is the study design sound? Are the methods appropriate? Does the abstract provide any supporting data? What kind of data are presented?

17 4. Scientific strength of the work, continued: Policy/Program Abstract: Is the underlying philosophy or conceptual model sound? Is the program or policy consistent with the practical questions of concern? Are the findings and conclusion presented? Are they understandable and consistent with the objectives, design, approach and findings of the study? Are the results presented measurable? Is the program based on a theoretical framework? Is the program evidence-based and culturally appropriate for the target population?

18 5. Topic addresses social determinants of health According to the World Health Organization the social determinants of health are defined as the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, including the health system. These circumstances are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels, which are themselves influenced by policy choices. (Retrieved from

19 6. Relevance of research/practice (e.g. significance, importance explained) Does the abstract add new information (research/program/policy) to the field? Does the abstract describe a new approach, or new application, to the topic? Or, does the abstract cover a new topic in the field? Does the abstract present a fresh, unique perspective on existing knowledge?

20 7. Discusses at least one of the following issues: Lessons learned, barriers to trust, social change, social justice, social action, health equity, community engagement, community participation, community empowerment, community led, capacity building, sustainability and other issues related to CBPR, CBPH and social determinants of health

21 8. Overall Impression of the work described What you think about the abstract? Your opinion?

22 There is a place in the online review to provide comments Please use this section to elaborate on your numeric ratings and explain your overall enthusiasm. You may wish to address the following items: Newsworthy? Do you agree with the author's requested format (oral, roundtable, poster)? If No, why not? Is there at least one valid objective meeting APHA specifications? Yes/No What is your overall level of enthusiasm for the abstract as a potential component of the CBPH program?

23 Related to the APHA theme: Healthography How where you live affects your health and wellbeing Does the abstract present information that relates to the 2014 APHA meeting theme, the vision of CBPHC and/or an important community-based public health problem or evidence of an emerging issue? Will the abstract reduce health disparity and access relating to where people live? Will the presentation contribute to improving public health practice? Is the abstract compelling, useful, and/or innovative?

24 The numerical ratings generally can be thought of as conveying the following meaning. You can convey the relative strength of your opinion by choosing a number within the range in each category: 9 or 10: Definitely Accept; Highest Priority 6, 7 or 8: Probably Accept; Satisfactory Quality 4 or 5: Borderline Accept; Lowest Priority 1, 2 or 3: Not Acceptable; Reject Abstract N/A: Leave as N/A if this criterion doesn't apply to a given abstract OR you cannot determine given the information presented in the abstract.

25 All abstracts are peer-reviewed by both community and academic reviewers (UNIQUE TO OUR CAUCUS) They will be considered for oral, poster or roundtable presentation, unless authors indicate a preference. After abstracts are rated, the program planners will organize sessions by overall topics and distribute highest rated abstracts into the sessions. If an abstract is accepted for presentation, the author is REQUIRED to present material as stated in the peer-reviewed abstract.

26 Several people agreed that printing off all the abstracts AND the scoring criteria an important tip. Grading them, writing the scores and comments offline

27 1. Are reviewers blinded to who the authors are? Yes, reviewers are blinded 2. About how many abstracts will each reviewer receive? Approximately 4-6 abstracts. This varies from year to year depending on how many abstracts we receive and how many reviewers are signed up. The assignment is based on the areas of expertise reviewers selected when signing up and whether the reviewer is considered a community or academic reviewer.

28 3. Do reviewers complete a conflict of interest? Yes, all reviewers will be asked to complete a conflict of interest form as part of the review process. Instructions will be provided via from APHA. 4. Do you provide feedback to the authors of all submissions or only to those who are accepted to present? The only feedback that is provided is whether the abstract was accepted or rejected.

29 5. What are the advantages of serving as a reviewer? An opportunity to contribute to the 2014 APHA Community- Based Public Health Caucus program. An opportunity to learn more about how to write a strong abstract and what makes an abstract strong, or, conversely, not strong. If you are a faculty member, serving as an abstract reviewer is an activity that counts toward promotion and tenure. If you are a community member, it is an opportunity to provide a community perspective that might otherwise be absent. It s interesting and fun. You can add to your resume for furthering your career.

30 6. How do you recommend assessing whether or not the topic is novel? This can be both intuitive (e.g. what interests you; what methodology, approach, population, or health issue is addressed in the abstract that is new to you) and literature based (e.g. what has not often seen in the literature). Novel does not necessarily refer to the theme for the APHA annual meeting. 7. Do we send our comments back to the person who sent the materials or do we upload online? Upload online

31 Please feel free to contact us should you have questions about reviewing abstracts: Larkin Strong 2014 Academic Program Planner Funke Akiyode 2014 Community Program Planner

32 What tips do you have for others to maintain fairness and consistency in reviewing abstracts? Type in the CHAT BOX.

33

34