Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29739780›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2018

Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders.

Anneliese Synnot, Peter Bragge, Dianne Lowe, Jack S Nunn, Molly O'Sullivan, Lidia Horvat, Allison Tong, Debra Kay, Davina Ghersi, Steve McDonald and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The development and comparative effectiveness of a patient-centered pathology report for breast cancer care: a randomized clinical trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. [Communication as a strategic tool for person-centered care].Anales del sistema sanitario de Navarra · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Engaging veteran stakeholders to identify patient-centred research priorities for optimizing implementation of lung cancer screening.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022
    Article
  17. Kidney health for all: bridging the gap in kidney health education and literacy.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 10 institutions in 4 countries.

Anneliese SynnotCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4008-4208
Peter BraggeBehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Dianne LoweCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jack S NunnCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Molly O'SullivanMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Lidia HorvatSafer Care Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Allison TongSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Debra KaySouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Davina GhersiNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Steve McDonaldCochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Naomi PooleAustralian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Noni BourkeBass Coast Health, Wonthaggi, Victoria, Australia.
Natasha LanninAlfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Danny VadaszHealth Issues Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sandy OliverUniversity College London, London, UK.
Karen CareyFormerly of Consumers Health Forum, Canberra, Australia.
Sophie J HillCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
La Trobe University · AUAustralian Regenerative Medicine Institute · AUThe University of Sydney · AUAustralian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care · AUCentral Coast Local Health District · AUConsumers Union · USIssues Research · USMurdoch Children's Research Institute · AUSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute · AUUniversity of Johannesburg · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify research priorities of consumers and other stakeholders to inform Cochrane Reviews in 'health communication and participation' (including such concepts as patient experience, shared decision-making and health literacy).

settingInternational.

participantsWe included anyone with an interest in health communication and participation. Up to 151 participants (18-80 years; 117 female) across 12 countries took part, including 48 consumers (patients, carers, consumer representatives) and 75 professionals (health professionals, policymakers, researchers) (plus 25 people who identified as both).

designSurvey.

methodsWe invited people to submit their research ideas via an online survey open for 4 weeks. Using inductive thematic analysis, we generated priority research topics, then classified these into broader themes.

resultsParticipants submitted 200 research ideas, which we grouped into 21 priority topics. Key research priorities included: insufficient consumer involvement in research (19 responses), 'official' health information is contradictory and hard to understand (18 responses), communication/coordination breakdowns in health services (15 responses), health information provision a low priority for health professionals (15 responses), insufficient eliciting of patient preferences (14 responses), health services poorly understand/implement patient-centred care (14 responses), lack of holistic care impacting healthcare quality and safety (13 responses) and inadequate consumer involvement in service design (11 responses). These priorities encompassed acute and community health settings, with implications for policy and research. Priority populations of interest included people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, carers, and people with low educational attainment, or mental illness. Most frequently suggested interventions focused on training and cultural change activities for health services and health professionals.

conclusionsConsumers and other stakeholders want research addressing structural and cultural challenges in health services (eg, lack of holistic, patient-centred, culturally safe care) and building health professionals' communication skills. Solutions should be devised in partnership with consumers, and focus on the needs of vulnerable groups.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationHealth CommunicationHealth PrioritiesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overDecision MakingFemaleHealth PersonnelHealth Services ResearchHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient PreferenceQuality of Health CareCochranecommunicationconsumerspatient preferenceresearch prioritiesstakeholders

Identifiers

PMID29739780
PMCPMC5942413
OpenAlexW2800724805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.