Table 2 Framework for outcome evaluation: elements, questions and data sources

Improved stakeholder understanding

1. Did stakeholders obtain more than a knowledge of the priority-setting process, but gained insight into broader aspects of priority-setting (e.g. the rationale for priority-setting generally) and/or the CCCG/Cochrane (e.g. its mission, values)?

- Workshop feedback survey

- Project documents (communication with stakeholders)

- CCCG Editorial team reflections

Shifted priorities and/or reallocation of resources

2. Were more Cochrane Reviews topics selected that were relevant to stakeholders?

- CCCG Editorial team reflections

3. Did Cochrane Review topics that reflect the priorities of stakeholders get funded and conducted?

- Communication material (publication)

Improved decision-making quality

4. Were CCCG decisions and strategic direction more consistent with the priorities generated?

- CCCG Editorial team reflections

5. (Did future CCCG priority-setting activities aim to build on earlier efforts?)^a

- CCCG Editorial documents and policies for review production

Stakeholder acceptance and satisfaction

6. Did stakeholders express satisfaction with the process?

- Workshop feedback survey

7. Did stakeholders partner with researchers to conduct the priority Cochrane Reviews?

- Informal feedback from stakeholders

8. (Did stakeholders use the results of the priority reviews?)^a

- Priority review production metrics

Positive externalities

9. Were the results of the priority-setting process shared widely?

- Project documents

10. Did research funders and research institutes include the priorities as part of their research agenda or strategic planning?

- Communication materials (webpage, final report, publications)

11. Was the priority-setting process and/or its results emulated by or did it influence the work of other organisations?

12. (Did the priority reviews result in changed policies, legislation or clinical practice?)^a

- CCCG Editorial team reflections