ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019
Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Patient, family and clinician priorities for critical care research in Asia and Africa: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership using modified Delphi and nominal group techniques.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Making patient experience actionable: applying importance-performance analysis to guide improvements in Swedish healthcare.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- 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 · 2025Article
- Coproducing a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Process, Outcomes, and Reflections on Power.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Prioritising research funding for cardiovascular disease and diabetes in Australia.Journal of public health policy · 2023Review
- Quick prioritization of Cochrane reviews on benign conditions of the prostate.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
- Oxford consensus on primary cam morphology and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome: part 2-research priorities on conditions affecting the young person's hip.British journal of sports medicine · 2022Article
- A survey and stakeholder group prioritised key systematic review questions in airways disease.Dialogues in health · 2022Article
- Improving Health Literacy Knowledge, Behaviors, and Confidence with Interactive Training.Health literacy research and practice · 2022Article
- 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 · 2022Article
- From policy to practice: prioritizing person-centred healthcare actions in the state of Victoria.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Stakeholder Involvement in Systematic Reviews: Lessons From Cochrane's Public Health and Health Systems Network.American journal of public health · 2021Article
- Assess, Plan, Do, Evaluate, and Report: Iterative Cycle to Remove Academic Control of a Community-Based Physical Activity Program.Preventing chronic disease · 2021Article
- Involving people affected by a rare condition in shaping future genomic research.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Perspectives and Experiences of Policy Makers, Researchers, Health Information Technology Professionals, and the Public on Evidence-Based Health Policies: Protocol for a Qualitative Study.JMIR research protocols · 2020Article
- Evaluation of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group's systematic review priority-setting project.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Massive open online course for Brazilian healthcare providers working with substance use disorders: curriculum design.BMC medical education · 2020Review
- 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 · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.