. 2019 Apr 29;17(1):45.

doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0444-z.

Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders

Anneliese J Synnot^{1

2}, Allison Tong^{3

4}, Peter Bragge⁵, Dianne Lowe¹, Jack S Nunn¹, Molly O'Sullivan⁶, Lidia Horvat⁷, Debra Kay⁸, Davina Ghersi^{9

10}, Steve McDonald², Naomi Poole¹¹, Noni Bourke¹², Natasha A Lannin^{13

14}, Danny Vadasz¹⁵, Sandy Oliver^{16

17}, Karen Carey¹⁰, Sophie J Hill¹⁸

Affiliations

¹ Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
² Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
³ Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
⁴ Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia.
⁵ BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
⁶ Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
⁷ Safer Care Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
⁸ South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia.
⁹ NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
¹⁰ National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra, Australia.
¹¹ Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare, Sydney, Australia.
¹² Bass Coast Health, Wonthaggi, Australia.
¹³ Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia.
¹⁴ School of Allied Health (Occupational Therapy), La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
¹⁵ Health Issues Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
¹⁶ University College London, London, United Kingdom.
¹⁷ University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
¹⁸ Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. sophie.hill@latrobe.edu.au.

PMID: 31036016
PMCID: PMC6489310
DOI: 10.1186/s12961-019-0444-z

Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders

Anneliese J Synnot et al. Health Res Policy Syst. 2019.

. 2019 Apr 29;17(1):45.

doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0444-z.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
² Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
³ Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
⁴ Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia.
⁵ BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
⁶ Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
⁷ Safer Care Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
⁸ South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia.
⁹ NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
¹⁰ National Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra, Australia.
¹¹ Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare, Sydney, Australia.
¹² Bass Coast Health, Wonthaggi, Australia.
¹³ Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia.
¹⁴ School of Allied Health (Occupational Therapy), La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
¹⁵ Health Issues Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
¹⁶ University College London, London, United Kingdom.
¹⁷ University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
¹⁸ Centre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. sophie.hill@latrobe.edu.au.

PMID: 31036016
PMCID: PMC6489310
DOI: 10.1186/s12961-019-0444-z

Abstract

Background: Priority-setting partnerships between researchers and stakeholders (meaning consumers, health professionals and health decision-makers) may improve research relevance and value. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) publishes systematic reviews in 'health communication and participation', which includes concepts such as shared decision-making, patient-centred care and health literacy. We aimed to select and refine priority topics for systematic reviews in health communication and participation, and use these to identify five priority CCCG Cochrane Reviews.

Methods: Twenty-eight participants (14 consumers, 14 health professionals/decision-makers) attended a 1-day workshop in Australia. Using large-group activities and voting, participants discussed, revised and then selected 12 priority topics from a list of 21 previously identified topics. In mixed small groups, participants refined these topics, exploring underlying problems, who they affect and potential solutions. Thematic analysis identified cross-cutting themes, in addition to key populations and potential interventions for future Cochrane Reviews. We mapped these against CCCG's existing review portfolio to identify five priority reviews.

Results: Priority topics included poor understanding and implementation of patient-centred care by health services, the fact that health information can be a low priority for health professionals, communication and coordination breakdowns in health services, and inadequate consumer involvement in health service design. The four themes underpinning the topics were culture and organisational structures, health professional attitudes and assumptions, inconsistent experiences of care, and lack of shared understanding in the sector. Key populations for future reviews were described in terms of social health characteristics (e.g. people from indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, elderly people, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage) more than individual health characteristics. Potential interventions included health professional education, interventions to change health service/health professional culture and attitudes, and health service policies and standards. The resulting five priority Cochrane Reviews identified were improving end-of-life care communication, patient/family involvement in patient safety, improving future doctors' communication skills, consumer engagement strategies, and promoting patient-centred care.

Conclusions: Stakeholders identified priority topics for systematic reviews associated with structural and cultural challenges underlying health communication and participation, and were concerned that issues of equity be addressed. Priority-setting with stakeholders presents opportunities and challenges for review producers.

Keywords: Health communication; community participation; decision-making; health priorities; patient participation; patient-centred care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

We received approval from La Trobe University Science, Health and Engineering College Human Ethics Sub-Committee (S15–52) and all participants provided written consent.

Consent for publication

Participants provided consent for the information they shared as part of this study, including anonymised direct quotes, to be included in publications.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. PB is an Associate Editor of Health Research Policy and Systems played no role in the peer review or editorial decisions for this paper.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

**Fig 1**
Summary of project aims, corresponding intended outputs and summary of main results

**Fig 2**
Workshop format, time, sessions and activities, with the corresponding number of priority topics throughout the day

See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

1. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–89. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9. - DOI - PubMed
1. National Health and Medical Research Council and Consumers Health Forum of Australia. Statement on Consumer and Community Involvement in Health and Medical Research. Canberra: NHMRC; 2016.
1. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gülmezoglu AM, Howells DW, Ioannidis JPA, Oliver S. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):156–165. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62229-1. - DOI - PubMed
1. Tallon D, Chard J, Dieppe P. Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumer. Lancet. 2000;355(9220):2037–2040. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02351-5. - DOI - PubMed
1. Crowe S, Fenton M, Hall M, Cowan K, Chalmers I. Patients’, clinicians’ and the research communities’ priorities for treatment research: there is an important mismatch. Res Involv Engagem. 2015;1:14. doi: 10.1186/s40900-015-0014-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms

Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions
Actions

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources

Save citation to file

Email citation

Add to Collections

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search

Create a file for external citation management software

Your RSS Feed

Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders

Affiliations

Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders

Authors

Affiliations

Abstract

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Competing interests

Publisher’s Note

Figures

References

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources

Full Text Sources