PMID- 32878617
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20210728
LR  - 20240329
IS  - 1478-4505 (Electronic)
IS  - 1478-4505 (Linking)
VI  - 18
IP  - 1
DP  - 2020 Sep 2
TI  - Evaluation of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group's systematic review 
      priority-setting project.
PG  - 98
LID - 10.1186/s12961-020-00604-x [doi]
LID - 98
AB  - BACKGROUND: Health researchers and funders are increasingly consulting with 
      stakeholders to set their research agendas but these activities are rarely 
      evaluated. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) conducted a 
      priority-setting project for systematic reviews in partnership with stakeholders 
      (consumers/patients, health professionals, policy-makers and others). In this 
      paper, we aim to describe our evaluation of the project's processes and outcomes. 
      METHODS: We used a 10-element conceptual framework designed to evaluate processes 
      (e.g. stakeholder engagement, use of explicit process) and outcomes (e.g. 
      improved decision-making quality, stakeholder acceptance and understanding) of 
      health priority-setting. Data sources included empirical data (feedback surveys, 
      project documents and CCCG editorial policies) and CCCG staff reflections. Data 
      were analysed using content analysis. RESULTS: The project met three and 
      partially met two of the process elements, for example, by engaging key 
      stakeholders throughout the project and using pre-determined and transparent 
      methods that offered multiple and meaningful ways to contribute. The project met 
      three and partially met two of the outcome elements. Stakeholders were satisfied 
      with and accepted the process and an additional six Cochrane Review titles 
      aligned with stakeholder priorities are now being conducted in partnership with 
      stakeholders. The project has also directly influenced the editorial work of 
      CCCG, for example, by shifting its organisational focus towards coproduction, and 
      indirectly influenced the work of Cochrane's prioritisation and coproduction 
      activities. Some areas were identified as having room for improvement, for 
      example, there was low participation by people from diverse backgrounds, 
      stakeholders could contribute to most but not all project stages, and there was 
      no formal way for stakeholders to appeal decisions at project end. In the 3 years 
      since its completion, the Cochrane Reviews are nearing completion but none of the 
      reviews have been published. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that our 
      priority-setting methods were broadly in line with best practice and the project 
      resulted in many positive outcomes beyond just identifying the top priorities for 
      research. Our evaluation framework and recommendations for future evaluations may 
      be of use to priority-setting researchers planning similar activities.
FAU - Synnot, Anneliese
AU  - Synnot A
AUID- ORCID: 0000-0002-4008-4208
AD  - Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and 
      Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 
      a.synnot@latrobe.edu.au.
AD  - Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash 
      University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. a.synnot@latrobe.edu.au.
FAU - Tong, Allison
AU  - Tong A
AD  - Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
AD  - Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, 
      Australia.
FAU - Ryan, Rebecca
AU  - Ryan R
AD  - Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and 
      Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
FAU - Hill, Sophie
AU  - Hill S
AD  - Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and 
      Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
LA  - eng
GR  - 1132803/National Health and Medical Research Council/
GR  - 1106716/National Health and Medical Research Council/
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20200902
PL  - England
TA  - Health Res Policy Syst
JT  - Health research policy and systems
JID - 101170481
SB  - IM
MH  - *Communication
MH  - Health Personnel
MH  - *Health Priorities
MH  - Humans
MH  - Stakeholder Participation
MH  - Systematic Reviews as Topic
PMC - PMC7465879
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - Research priority-setting
OT  - evaluation
OT  - systematic review
COIS- Three of the authors (AS, RR, SH) are editors with the Cochrane Consumers and 
      Communication Group.
EDAT- 2020/09/04 06:00
MHDA- 2021/07/29 06:00
PMCR- 2020/09/02
CRDT- 2020/09/04 06:00
PHST- 2020/03/25 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2020/07/13 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2020/09/04 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2020/09/04 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2021/07/29 06:00 [medline]
PHST- 2020/09/02 00:00 [pmc-release]
AID - 10.1186/s12961-020-00604-x [pii]
AID - 604 [pii]
AID - 10.1186/s12961-020-00604-x [doi]
PST - epublish
SO  - Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Sep 2;18(1):98. doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-00604-x.