Publication Committee Conference Call Notes

07/09/01, 2:00 – 3:00 p.m. CST

ATTENDANCE:

David Barney – OK

Yolanda Cantu – VAC

Sandi Duggan – VAC

Tony Estrada – AZ

João Ferreira-Pinto – NM

George Huba – TMG

Marisa Olivares – VAC

Bob Smith – VAC

John Wiebe – ELP

Tony opened the conference call. He discussed reasons for a publication committee and acknowledged the models of publication policies that had been distributed prior to the call. He suggested the primary goals of a publication committee to be 1) rapid dissemination of research findings, and 2) assurance of proper data access and use.

João asked about the scope of the committee, namely, whether it should be involved in the preparation of brief (prepublication) reports that could be used by HRSA for accountability purposes. John suggested that such reports might be within the scope of the committee’s responsibility to the extent that they could also be disseminated as conference presentations, etc. Tony expressed the belief that such reports might be best prepared by the Evaluation Center without committee input. Yolanda concurred with Tony, but suggested that the committee could be helpful in interpreting data from individual sites. George recommended that rather than writing brief reports, the evaluation center should consider writing monographs (perhaps at the end of years three and five).

Tony raised the issue of committee membership. He suggested that the committee should include at least one member from each site, who would serve with the approval of the PI. After brief discussion, John noted that because the PIs and HRSA were not well represented at the conference call, it might be best to delay consideration of committee membership to the grantee meeting in August. The issue was tabled by consensus.

David raised the issue of how much time would be needed at the grantee meeting to discuss publication issues. He noted that one hour is currently allotted in the schedule. There was consensus that more than one hour would be needed.

Tony began discussion of dissemination policy. He started with the issue of data requisition. He suggested that only PIs and evaluators should have access to data automatically, and that others who wished to have access to data should petition the publication committee. John noted that specific guidelines for data requisition and other issues were comprehensively and explicitly treated in the CDC/HRSA Corrections Demonstration Project Dissemination Protocol distributed by HRSA, and he suggested that we start with that document and adapt it as necessary for the current project. Tony and Yolanda concurred with this plan.

George expressed some concern about the highly detailed and restrictive nature of the CDC/HRSA protocol, and directed attention to the protocol used by TMG as a possible alternative. He noted several key features of TMG’s protocol, including the distinction between “Type I, II, & III” studies. He recommended a less formal process, with the rationale that it would promote collegiality and productivity, while preventing individuals from getting “caught up in the details” of the process. Several attendees concurred with this recommendation.

It was decided by consensus to begin with the CDC/HRSA protocol and adapt it, implementing TMG concepts as appropriate, and excising unnecessary detail and restrictions. David agreed to write an initial draft protocol and distribute it via e-mail prior to the grantee meeting, tentatively, by the end of next week. Representatives from each site and from HRSA are encouraged to make specific comments on the draft and to discuss them during the meeting in Washington.

Prepared by John Wiebe