Background:
Cochrane Fields link consumers, clinicians, and other stakeholders, and undertake specialist activities to transfer Cochrane evidence. Many Fields produce Cochrane Corners (CC), summaries of individual Cochrane Reviews that present key review information with specific insights relevant to the needs of stakeholder audiences. However, the organisation management and publication of CC varies across Fields.

Objectives:
To evaluate current CC practices across Cochrane Fields, identify commonalities and variations in approach, and establish minimum reporting criteria for CC programs.

Methods:
We collected CC program process data from six Fields via spreadsheets. This was followed by purposive one-to-one interviews via Skype with staff of five participating Fields. Semi-structured questions, tested for face validity with Cochrane Nursing Field members, were provided to participants in advance. Interviews were one hour long and recorded. We then transcribed, coded and analysed the interview data, allowing cross-comparisons between the spreadsheet and interview data.

Results:
Drawing on the concept analysis and cross-comparisons in the spreadsheets, we found core aspects of the development of a CC, in topic selection, writer guidance, editorial process and reliance upon templates/resources to facilitate consistency between CC writers. Specific areas of difference in processes included approaches to stakeholder engagement, CC writer selection, publication timeline management and journal selection. Qualitative interview data highlighted methods for engagement with stakeholders and core criteria for quality. These will be presented as the key findings of this collaborative Cochrane Fields project.

Conclusions:
Ensuring CC are tailored to engage and meet the various Fields' stakeholders needs contributes to the uptake and accessibility of Cochrane evidence. Variation in CC programs across Fields is within an overarching quality framework based upon maintaining reliability and fits the methods of stakeholder engagement that are specific to the needs and priorities of each Field. The implications of these results will be presentedand discussed.

Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
Lessons from this project will be extended to Field activities directly targeting patients and consumers.