Background: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions v. 5.0.0 identifies that methods for synthesis of qualitative studies can inform Cochrane reviews. In Australia, the Victorian Department of Human Services has required parallel reviews to be conducted: a Cochrane review; and a review of studies of mixed methods, to inform development of strategies to notify and support consumers in situations of iatrogenic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) exposure. Objectives: To develop methodological steps to link the inputs and syntheses of a Cochrane review and a non-Cochrane review of mixed methods studies. Methods: The non-Cochrane review will synthesise evidence on consumers’ needs, experiences and preferences in relation to notification, support, health and social services, and will identify timing and organisational issues. It will account for fragmentary research that is difficult to identify and find and use broad inclusion criteria, including diverse sources, e.g. consumer stories and complaints, survey data, government reports. The Cochrane review will synthesise evidence on interventions to notify and support consumers. Methods of linkage will be developed to accommodate: parallel conduct of reviews and synthesis; applicability linked to populations, interventions, outcomes, settings. Results: Key questions will be used to analyse the non-Cochrane review data and the data used to inform the scope, outcomes and implications of the Cochrane review in the context of this analytic framework: 1. What are people’s experiences of being notified of CJD? 2. What are people’s needs with respect to notification or support strategies? 3. What are people’s preferred methods/providers/formats for notification of CJD risk exposure? 4. What issues on intervention feasibility and implementation exist? 5. What are the possible harms of being notified of CJD exposure? 6. What barriers prevent people seeking support/follow-up after notification? Results will be presented, exploring how these questions enabled linkage between syntheses. Conclusions: Evaluating the evidence in socially complex areas such as notification and support can benefit by adopting mixed methods to inform evaluations of intervention effectiveness in Cochrane reviews. Conducting parallel reviews can capitalise on the current state of the evidence to make evidence-informed recommendations and can inform Cochrane reviews to develop a relevant research and policy agenda.