Dianne Lowe

Priority-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. Twenty-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. Priority 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. Stakeholders 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.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Qualitative). The objectives are as follows: Aims To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of working in partnership to promote person‐centred health services. To identify best practice principles for working in partnership at the health service level by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences. Objectives To investigate the barriers and facilitators to working in partnership and how these may promote or impede person‐centred planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. For example, if consumers are given sufficient training to help them work in partnership on a hospital quality and safety committee, they may be better able to contribute the consumer perspective to quality and safety decisions. To understand consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of working in partnership. To analyse the ways consumers and providers work in partnership (e.g. committee formats, experience‐based co‐design formats).

This paper describes the people, activities and methods of consumer engagement in a complex research project, and reflects on the influence this had on the research and people involved, and enablers and challenges of engagement. The 2.5-year Integrating and Deriving Evidence Experiences and Preferences (IN-DEEP) study was conducted to develop online consumer summaries of multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment evidence in partnership with a three-member consumer advisory group. Engagement methods included 6-monthly face-to-face meetings and email contact. Advisory group members were active in planning, conduct and dissemination and translational phases of the research. Engaging consumers in this way improved the quality of the research process and outputs by: being more responsive to, and reflective of, the experiences of Australians with MS; expanding the research reach and depth; and improving the researchers’ capacity to manage study challenges. Advisory group members found contributing their expertise to MS research satisfying and empowering, whereas researchers gained confidence in the research direction. Managing the unpredictability of MS was a substantive challenge; the key enabler was the ‘brokering role’ of the researcher based at an MS organisation. Meaningfully engaging consumers with a range of skills, experiences and networks can make important and unforeseen contributions to research success.

Objective To identify research priorities of consumers and other stakeholders to inform Cochrane Reviews in ‘health communication and participation’ (including such concepts as patient experience, shared decision-making and health literacy). Setting International. Participants We included anyone with an interest in health communication and participation. Up to 151 participants (18–80 years; 117 female) across 12 countries took part, including 48 consumers (patients, carers, consumer representatives) and 75 professionals (health professionals, policymakers, researchers) (plus 25 people who identified as both). Design Survey. Methods We invited people to submit their research ideas via an online survey open for 4 weeks. Using inductive thematic analysis, we generated priority research topics, then classified these into broader themes. Results Participants submitted 200 research ideas, which we grouped into 21 priority topics. Key research priorities included: insufficient consumer involvement in research (19 responses), ‘official’ health information is contradictory and hard to understand (18 responses), communication/coordination breakdowns in health services (15 responses), health information provision a low priority for health professionals (15 responses), insufficient eliciting of patient preferences (14 responses), health services poorly understand/implement patient-centred care (14 responses), lack of holistic care impacting healthcare quality and safety (13 responses) and inadequate consumer involvement in service design (11 responses). These priorities encompassed acute and community health settings, with implications for policy and research. Priority populations of interest included people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, carers, and people with low educational attainment, or mental illness. Most frequently suggested interventions focused on training and cultural change activities for health services and health professionals. Conclusions Consumers and other stakeholders want research addressing structural and cultural challenges in health services (eg, lack of holistic, patient-centred, culturally safe care) and building health professionals’ communication skills. Solutions should be devised in partnership with consumers, and focus on the needs of vulnerable groups.

Knowledge translation resources that summarise and disseminate systematic review findings can support evidence into policy and practice. Since 2007, we have produced Evidence Bulletins; brief, web-based summaries of Cochrane Reviews published by Cochrane Consumers and Communication. Evidence Bulletins are designed for health decision makers employed by or in representational roles within policy and practice settings, that is, policy makers, health professionals and consumer and carer representatives. In this paper, we describe the evolution of our Evidence Bulletins, including revisions made to ensure they reflect the latest research-based guidance on evidence summaries, the results of a subsequent evaluation, and how we incorporated the evaluation findings by making further revisions to the Evidence Bulletin development process and format. The main initial revision to the Evidence Bulletins was the addition of a new section, in which we explicitly considered the relevance of the evidence to the healthcare context in Victoria, Australia. To evaluate the Bulletins, we conducted structured feedback sessions at five Australian health services involving 14 staff and eight consumer representatives. Participants were invited to share their perceptions about the usefulness of the Bulletins and how they might use them for decision making. Although the Evidence Bulletin format, and the new Relevance section were broadly endorsed by both stakeholder groups, a number of suggestions for improvement were identified. As preferences varied somewhat between the two groups; specifically identifying the intended audience for each Bulletin and seeking the input of the nominated stakeholder group in the development may improve usefulness.

Multiple health conditions are increasingly a problem for adults with musculoskeletal conditions. However, multimorbidity research has focused primarily on the elderly and those with a limited subset of musculoskeletal disorders. We sought to determine whether associations between multimorbidity and additional burden differ with specific forms of musculoskeletal conditions among working-age adults. Data were sourced from a nationally representative Australian survey. Specific musculoskeletal conditions examined were osteoarthritis; inflammatory arthritis; other forms of arthritis or arthropathies; musculoskeletal conditions not elsewhere specified; gout; back pain; soft tissue disorders; or osteoporosis. Multimorbidity was defined as the additional presence of one or more of the Australian National Health Priority Area conditions. Burden was assessed by self-reported measures of: (i) self-rated health (ii) musculoskeletal-related healthcare and medicines utilisation and, (iii) general healthcare utilisation. Associations between multimorbidity and additional health or healthcare utilisation burden among working-age adults (aged 18 – 64 years of age) with specific musculoskeletal conditions were estimated using logistic regression, adjusting for confounders. Interaction terms were fitted to identify whether there were specific musculoskeletal conditions where multimorbidity was more strongly associated with poorer health or greater healthcare utilisation than in the remaining musculoskeletal group. Among working-age adults, for each of the specified musculoskeletal conditions, multimorbidity was associated with similar, increased likelihood of additional self-rated health burden and certain types of healthcare utilisation. While there were differences in the relationships between multimorbidity and burden for each of the specific musculoskeletal conditions, no one specific musculoskeletal condition appeared to be consistently associated with greater additional health burden in the presence of multimorbidity across the majority of self-rated health burden and healthcare use measures. For working-age people with any musculoskeletal conditions examined here, multimorbidity increases self-reported health and healthcare utilisation burden. As no one musculoskeletal condition appears consistently worse off in the presence of multimorbidity, there is a need to better understand and identify strategies that acknowledge and address the additional burden of concomitant conditions for working-age adults with a range of musculoskeletal conditions.

Multimorbidity and musculoskeletal conditions create substantial burden for people and health systems. Quantifying the extent of co-occurring conditions is hampered by conceptual heterogeneity, imprecision and/or indecision about how multimorbidity is defined. The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of different ways of operationalising multimorbidity on multimorbidity prevalence rates with a focus on working-age adults with musculoskeletal conditions. Weighted population prevalence rates of multimorbidity among working-age Australians were estimated using data from the National Health Survey. Two nominal thresholds (2+ or 3+ co-occurring conditions) and three operational definitions of multimorbidity (survey-, policy- and research-based) were examined. Using logistic regression, we estimated the association between the prevalence of multimorbidity among persons with musculoskeletal conditions compared to persons with non-musculoskeletal conditions for each definition and threshold combination. As few as 7.9% of working-age Australians have 2+ conditions using the research-based definition (95% CI 7.4–8.5%), compared to estimates of 15.3% (95% CI 14.3–16.2%) and 61.5% (95% CI 60.3–62.7%). with the policy- and survey-based definitions, respectively. Depending on definition, with the 3+ threshold multimorbidity prevalence ranged from 2.1% (research) to 41.9% (survey). Among the sub-sample with musculoskeletal conditions, multimorbidity with the 2+ threshold ranged from 20.2 to 92.2%; and with 3+ threshold from 5.9 to 75.4%, again lowest with the research-definition and highest with the survey-definition. When compared to any other condition (i.e. non-musculoskeletal conditions), all musculoskeletal conditions were positively associated with multimorbidity, regardless of definition or threshold. Depending on definition and threshold, multimorbidity is either rare or endemic in working-age Australians. Irrespective of definition, musculoskeletal conditions are a near-ubiquitous feature of multimorbidity.

Suboptimal prescribing and medications use is a problem for health systems globally. Systematic reviews are a comprehensive resource that can help guide evidence-informed decision-making and implementation of interventions addressing such issues; however, a barrier to the use of systematic reviews is their inaccessibility (due to both dispersion across journals and inaccessibility of content). Publicly available databases, such as Rx for Change, provide quick access to summaries of appraised systematic reviews of professional and consumer-oriented interventions to improve prescribing behaviour and appropriate medication use, and may help maximise the use of evidence to inform decisions. The present study aims to evaluate a training program to improve attitudes towards, confidence in skills, intentions to use, and use of systematic review evidence contained within Rx for Change. Guided by the Knowledge to Action framework, a training program with content customised to local provider and consumer contexts was developed with knowledge user input. The training program consisted of a 6 minute information video, a 1 hour workshop with hands-on, interactive and didactic components, and two post-training reminders. Forty-nine people from five medicines-focused organisations in Canada and Australia attended one of six workshops. Participants were surveyed immediately pre and post and 3 months after training to evaluate their attitudes towards, confidence in skills, intentions to use, and use of Rx for Change, and attitudes towards and confidence in skills for using evidence for decision-making. Analyses for differences for each of the outcomes at three time points (pre, post and 3 months after training) was performed using a random effects model. Immediately post-training, there were higher respondent attitudes towards Rx for Change (mean increase = 0.54 out of 5, 95% CI, 0.18–0.83, P < 0.005); intention to use Rx for Change (0.53, 95% CI, 0.21–0.86, P < 0.005); confidence in skills for using Rx for Change (2.08, 95% CI, 1.74–2.42, P < 0.005); and confidence in skills for using evidence in policy decision-making (0.50, 95% CI, 0.22–0.77, P < .005) compared to pre-training. Confidence in skills for using both Rx for Change and evidence were maintained 3 months after training (both P < 0.005). Participants of this training program reported sustained improvements in their confidence in skills for using evidence in policy decision-making. This may have important implications for uptake of systematic review evidence promoting improved prescribing and medication use.