Skip to main content
PMC home page
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 2001 Nov 24;323(7323):1252.

Collaboration with the Campbell Collaboration

Campbell principles are applied in West Midlands through public health research forum

John Middleton 1,2,3,4, Elizabeth Reeves 1,2,3,4, Richard Lilford 1,2,3,4, Frances Howie 1,2,3,4, Chris Hyde 1,2,3,4
PMCID: PMC1121709  PMID: 11758523

Editor—We welcome the application of systematic reviews to the analysis of effective, healthy public policy.1 In the West Midlands we have applied Campbell principles through a public health research forum over the past two years. We have refined a shortlist of public policy interventions in education, criminal justice, and health fields through a series of in-depth reviews of evidence. We believe that these should be implemented systematically: if they were drugs it would be unethical not to use them.

Strong and consistent evidence was found for preschool interventions and family support for families with children at risk of school failure.2 In Sandwell this has led to the implementation of a programme of training for nursery nurses and teachers, health visitors, and social workers funded through the Sandwell health action zone. Strong evidence was also found for a range of interventions for children with mild to moderate behavioural problems and their families. Cognitive behavioural therapies offer benefit in an expanding range of psychosocial and behavioural problems.

Interactive drug education programmes seem to offer strong benefits.3 A sound systematic review was identified for methadone based harm reduction regimens for opiate addiction,4 which lent support to the approach of some national policies in preventing drug related crime.

A small group of youth service and youth justice workers in the West Midlands is reviewing the evidence on interventions in young people's services. We have identified several interventions without clear evidence of benefit. The DARE (drug abuse resistance education) drugs education programme in the United States, although popular and widespread, has a much smaller size effect than interactive drug education programmes.3

The “Scared Straight” programme in the United States is another popular and politically attractive programme, in which high school students are shown life in prison in order to scare them out of a life of crime.5 Systematic reviews of the programme have shown adverse outcomes for the subjects. We have been alarmed to learn that a variant of this programme has been introduced into the United Kingdom, and we have asked the Home Office to discourage it from our schools (JM, personal communication).

Unanswered questions remain about many aspects of public policy, particularly in criminal justice and community safety—the effectiveness of closed circuit television (CCTV), street lighting, and police on the beat, and of boot camps versus adventure camps. Many of these could be answered best through properly constructed randomised controlled trials.

References

  • 1.Davies P, Boruch R. The Campbell Collaboration. BMJ. 2001;323:294–295. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7308.294. . (11 August.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Roberts I, Zoritch B. Cochrane library. Issue 3. Oxford: Update Software; 2001. Day care for pre-school children (Cochrane review) [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Tobler NS, Stratton HH. Effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs: a meta-analysis of the research. J Primary Prevention. 1997;18:71–128. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Marsch LA. The efficacy of methadone maintenance interventions in reducing illicit opiate use, HIV risk behavior and criminality: a meta-analysis. Addiction. 1998;93:515–532. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.1998.9345157.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Petrosino A, Turpin-Petrosino C, Finckenauer JO. Well meaning programs can have harmful effects! Lessons from experiments of programs such as scared straight. Crime and Delinquency. 2000;46:354–379. [Google Scholar]
BMJ. 2001 Nov 24;323(7323):1252.

EPPI Centre reviews will aim to disseminate systematic reviews in education

Diana Elbourne 1,2, Ann Oakley 1,2, David Gough 1,2

Editor—Davies and Boruch draw the attention of BMJ readers to the Campbell Collaboration (http://campbell.gse.upenn.edu).1-1 These readers will be well aware of the importance of systematic reviews in health,1-2 particularly the reviews from the Cochrane Collaboration (www.cochrane.org).

Systematic reviews are less well accepted or even known about outside medicine, even though some of the early meta-analytic work was in education.1-3 The Campbell Collaboration and several initiatives based on the provision and dissemination of research evidence in social and public policy (www.esrc.ac.uk/EBPesrcUKcentre.htm) suggest, however, that this situation is changing.

In education, the Department for Education and Employment (now Department of Education and Skills) established the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre (EPPI Centre) in 2000 at the Social Science Research Unit in the Institute of Education, London. The unit has a long history of systematic reviewing in social interventions1-4 and health and health promotion1-5 and is joint coordinator for the Cochrane health promotion and public health field.

The aim of the EPPI Centre (http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk) is to facilitate the production and dissemination of systematic reviews of research evidence to inform policy and practice in education. EPPI Centre reviews, like Campbell reviews, will consider research addressing a broad set of research questions including, for example, “what works?” and “what is the process?”

Influenced by the pioneering work at the Cochrane Collaboration, these reviews are being based around the establishment of education review groups, which include not just academic researchers but also policymakers, practitioners, and other actual and potential users of the research evidence. The groups are supported to take forward a programme of reviews in specific areas of education. There are currently groups in assessment and learning research, English teaching, gender and education, inclusive education, school leadership, and post-compulsory education, and a further four will probably be registered later. The reviews and the data underpinning them will be placed on the web for free access.

Members of the EPPI Centre collaborate with fellow reviewers in parallel organisations such as the Cochrane and Campbell Collaborations. Different disciplines have much to learn from each other, and we hope that this shared spirit of openness and collaboration will lead to better informed decisions for policy and practice.

References

  • 1-1.Davies P, Boruch R. The Campbell Collaboration. BMJ. 2001;323:294–295. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7308.294. . (11 August.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 1-2.Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG, editors. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books; 2001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 1-3.Glass G. Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher. 1976;5:3–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 1-4.Oakley A, Roberts H, editors. Evaluating social interventions. A report on two workshops. Barkingside: Barnardo's; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 1-5.Oliver S, Peersman G, editors. Using research for effective health promotion. Milton Keynes: Open University Press; 2001. [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES