Background: As part of research priority-setting efforts, researchers are increasingly looking to use explicit criteria, tools or data to inform the selection of future research topics. However, much of the development of priority-setting tools, such as the Global Burden of Disease database, has occurred within the context of clinical interventions, and with populations with a defined disease. For complex interventions delivered across population settings and disease types, appropriate criteria, tools or data are less clear.
Objectives: To identify criteria (tools or data) that could be used to rank Australian priorities for systematic reviews, for complex interventions across diseases, in the area of health communication and participation.
Methods: Drawing upon existing policy documents and consumer experience data sources (i.e. patient experience data and/or adverse events data) and published priority-research literature, we will develop a set of criteria that can be used to rank priorities for reviews, in the area of health communication and participation. Once selected, criteria will be refined during a focus group session with key stakeholders then applied to a list of questions generated as part of a broader priority-setting project conducted by the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group.
Results: We have completed a scan of relevant Australian policy documents and existing priority-research literature. Subsequent project stages will include mapping the evidence from existing policy documents and consumer experience data sources, developing one or more ‘hierarchies of burden’ to form the criteria, trialling and refining selected criteria with stakeholders and applying these to results from an online survey.
Conclusions: Upon completion, we will have identified, trialled and applied an explicit set of criteria to rank Australian priorities for systematic reviews, for complex interventions across diseases, in the area of health communication and participation.