Table 1 Examples of evaluation feedback, team decisions and adaptations

Stakeholders in different roles had different information needs; some required summarised findings, others required detailed research reports

Report structure was adjusted to: 1-page key messages; 3-page executive summary; 25-page full report

The reports needed to be accessible and useful for a wide audience, including non-researchers; some stakeholders required more guidance to understand and use the reports

Report content was adjusted (e.g. to add an explanation of theory, to explain data trends, to add diagrams, to add a section on ‘how to use this report’)

Data tables were difficult for some stakeholders to understand and interpret

Presentation of health indicator and service delivery data was changed from table format to box-and-whisker-plot graphs^a

Some stakeholders did not participate in the surveys because they lacked confidence in their data analysis skills

A link to an audio-visual resource was added to support the text explanation of how to interpret box-and-whisker-plot graphs^a

Use of ‘academic-style’ language was a barrier to engaging with the reports

Plain language summaries were developed to accompany all subsequent reports

Some stakeholders did not participate in surveys because they perceived them to target those in other roles (e.g. policy officers perceiving the surveys targeted clinicians)

Statements on the advantages of participation by different professional groups were added to report summaries and emails

Some stakeholders found the surveys too long and/or considered the questions too repetitious

Survey questions were reduced in number across phase surveys; they were refined and reduced several times as the ESP project progressed

Many stakeholders who were motivated to participate had competing work demands and were time poor

Survey times were extended; email reminders were sent to encourage input

Those who participated in multiple ESP phases and cycles were committing considerable time; ‘survey fatigue’ was identified as a risk

Two project phases (one identifying barriers/enablers and one suggesting improvement strategies) were merged to reduce the number of phase surveys and reports in each ESP cycle

ESP emails were easily overlooked by key stakeholders due to high volumes of emails received

Coloured banners, photos and graphics were added to emails for more visual impact

ESP final reports were perceived to be large, partly because aggregated and trend data were included as appendices

Separate data supplements were published; they accompanied the ESP final reports

Expert input to data analysis and effective use of networks were important for stakeholder engagement

An expert/lead clinician in each area of care was asked to assist with data analysis, co-author ESP reports and disseminate the reports through their professional networks

CQI facilitators were vital for promoting the ESP project and facilitating local engagement

The team encouraged project communications and report dissemination through CQI practitioners/leaders in the CQI network

Indigenous stakeholders were mainly participating through group (rather than individual) survey responses

Group input was encouraged through project communications, in recognition of the critical importance of Indigenous input

A resource was needed to encourage and support group discussion and interpretation

A group facilitation guide was developed and promoted; links to the guide were embedded in report summaries and emails

One-page overviews of key findings in each area of care were suggested as a way of encouraging stakeholders to engage with the findings and access the ESP final reports

One-page overviews of key findings were produced and distributed

Key messages for action were needed to promote the use of ESP findings in each area of care

Key messages for action were developed from ESP findings; they were included in ESP reports and published as plain language summaries

Findings needed to be presented in a variety of formats to suit different work needs and learning styles

Findings were published online in all developed formats – reports, summaries, PowerPoint presentations, journal articles

ESP findings needed to be widely and easily accessible in the longer term; stakeholders intended to use the reports to resource future work tasks and information needs

ESP findings were published on research institution websites and in open web-based repositories for Indigenous health and policy publications