Background: knowledge translation(KT) includes strategies for transitioning knowledge (evidence) from one group or domain to another. Review tagging, in which groups allocate tags to a review in Cochrane’s editorial management system (Archie), is one such strategy. Discussions at the Lisbon Field’s Executive meeting identified that multiple Fields were tagging reviews but the process and expectations varied, as did the outputs. Review tagging as a form of KT is intended to 'facilitate pull' by increasing the ability of key stakeholders easily to find relevant Cochrane Reviews. Variation in how tagging is carried out across the Fields may have important implications for end user access and awareness, and impede the uptake of Cochrane evidence. Relatively little is known about the specific strategic perspectives of Fields in allocating resources to complete review tagging
Objectives: to map and describe the strategic and operational considerations across the Fields who actively tag reviews; in order to learn from each other and, where appropriate, to identify how to improve, simplify and standardize the review tagging process for maximum benefit.
Methods: the Cochrane KT Project Manager developed the survey based upon an informal needs analysis of the Fields Executive. Three users reviewed the draft survey, with the final version being circulated via email in March 2019 to all Fields Executive Members. We received seven responses, checked them for completeness and included them in the analysis. We narratively summarized the results and sent them back to the participating Fields, and discussed them via teleconference for further exploration and verification.
Results: we will present data on reasons for tagging, how specific fields use the information, the major challenges and risks involved in review tagging, methods for tagging (including any healthcare consumer engagement) and strategies for dissemination of tagged reviews.
Conclusions: the survey gathered and summarized this information from across the Fields who actively tag their reviews in order to learn from each other and, where appropriate, to start to think about how to improve, simplify and standardize the tagging process for maximum benefit. Fields are now working with the Editorial Policy and Publications Unit to maximise efficiency and impact of the review tagging process.