Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31036016›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019

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

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

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. The Coproduced Youth Priorities Project: Australian Youth Priorities for Mental Health and Substance Use Prevention Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Engaging young African American women breast cancer survivors: A novel storytelling approach to identify patient-centred research priorities.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
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 3 countries.

Anneliese J SynnotCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Allison TongSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Peter BraggeBehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Dianne LoweCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Jack S NunnCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.
Molly O'SullivanMurdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Lidia HorvatSafer Care Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
Debra KaySouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia.
Davina GhersiNHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Steve McDonaldCochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Naomi PooleAustralian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare, Sydney, Australia.
Noni BourkeBass Coast Health, Wonthaggi, Australia.
Natasha A LanninAlfred Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Danny VadaszHealth Issues Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Sandy OliverUniversity College London, London, United Kingdom.
Karen CareyNational Health and Medical Research Council, Canberra, Australia.
Sophie J HillCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. sophie.hill@latrobe.edu.au.
La Trobe University · AUMonash University · AUNational Health and Medical Research Council · AUAustralian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care · AUCentral Coast Local Health District · AUChildren's Hospital at Westmead · AUMelbourne Health · AUMurdoch Children's Research Institute · AUSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute · AUUniversity of Johannesburg · ZA

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council 1106716National Health and Medical Research Council 1132803
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPriority-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.

methodsTwenty-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.

resultsPriority 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.

conclusionsStakeholders 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.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCommunicationCommunity ParticipationHealth PrioritiesHealth ServicesPatient ParticipationStakeholder ParticipationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCultureDecision MakingFemaleHealth CommunicationHealth LiteracyHealth Policycommunity participationdecision-makingHealth communicationhealth prioritiespatient-centred carepatient participation

Identifiers

PMID31036016
PMCPMC6489310
OpenAlexW2948000967

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.