Evaluation of the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group’s systematic review priority-setting project

ABSTRACT 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.

Tags
Data and Resources
To access the resources you must log in

This item has no data

Identity

Description: The Identity category includes attributes that support the identification of the resource.

Field Value
PID https://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5111031
PID https://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5111031.v1
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5111031
URL http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.5111031.v1
Access Modality

Description: The Access Modality category includes attributes that report the modality of exploitation of the resource.

Field Value
Access Right not available
Attribution

Description: Authorships and contributors

Field Value
Author Synnot, Anneliese, 0000-0002-4008-4208
Author Tong, Allison
Author Ryan, Rebecca
Author Hill, Sophie
Publishing

Description: Attributes about the publishing venue (e.g. journal) and deposit location (e.g. repository)

Field Value
Collected From Datacite
Hosted By figshare
Publication Date 2020-01-01
Publisher figshare
Additional Info
Field Value
Language UNKNOWN
Resource Type Collection
keyword FOS: Sociology
keyword FOS: Biological sciences
keyword FOS: Health sciences
system:type other
Management Info
Field Value
Source https://science-innovation-policy.openaire.eu/search/other?orpId=dedup_wf_001::344265e64711ff33921fd8c49707ab76
Author jsonws_user
Last Updated 20 December 2020, 02:54 (CET)
Created 20 December 2020, 02:54 (CET)