JUDGING CRITERIA AND ENTRY FORMAT
Executive Summary – 200 words. 0 (zero) marks (not reviewed by the judges)
The Executive Summary will be used if the entry is selected as a finalist. Entrants should provide a concise overview explaining why the project, programme or event is award-worthy. This should highlight what makes the work unique, differentiating or innovative, and why it stands out within its category.
Main entry
It is essential to provide links to platforms/apps/videos etc to help the judges get an experience of any digital or immersive experiences, plus if passwords are required, ensure these are also included.
Entrants must indicate the budget band that reflects the fee value of the time spent delivering the project, programme or event. The following bands should be used:
Band A under £10,000
Band B £10,001-£25,000
Band C £25,001-£50,000
Band D £50,001-£100,000
Band E £100,001-£200,000
Band F over £200,001.
If permission has not been granted by any stakeholder for the budget band to be disclosed, this must be clearly stated within the submission.
Budget band must take into consideration total cost of the activity described in the entry – if you are including it in your tactical description then the full costs of that activity must be accounted for here
Providing the budget band is essential, as it enables judges to assess the scale, ambition, innovation and delivery of the work in context. Failure to supply this information will seriously limit the judges’ ability to evaluate the entry fairly and may result in disqualification.
Entrants should note that impressive or impactful work is not dependent on budget size; judges will assess how effectively resources were used relative to the objectives, not the level of spend.
Situation Analysis, needs assessment and desired impact – 15 marks (300 words)
In this section, you should show the judges how well you understood the situation at the start of the project, establishing a clear need for the initiative and the overall impact you intended to make.
Use this section/analysis to clearly lay out benchmark data that you will refer to in your measurement of effectiveness later.
Show the judges the best information, data and insights you have about uptake of health interventions, current practice, defining/segmenting audiences, identifying educational or information needs, which channels will best reach the audience, competitive environment, creative landscape etc before the start of your work.
Guidance for entrants
To support fair and robust evaluation, entries should demonstrate a clear understanding of the context, audiences and challenges, grounded in relevant data, insight and benchmarking. Strong submissions will ensure that statements made in any section are supported by evidence either within the entry or the accompanying materials, enabling judges to assess objectives and outcomes confidently and consistently.
Objectives – 15 marks (250 words)
Entrants should describe the objectives for the project or programme, clearly distinguishing between outputs, out-takes and outcomes. Outputs refer to the materials or platforms produced. Out-takes cover immediate indicators such as post-event evaluation, changes in knowledge or understanding, and engagement with content. Outcomes relate to changes in behaviour, clinical practice, patient pathways or policy, measured against the benchmarks established in the Situation Analysis.
Entrants should explain how each objective will be measured and ensure these measures are directly linked to the intended impact of the work.
Strategy – 15 marks (250 words)
Entrants should outline the rationale behind the selected strategic approach and show how it was shaped by the data and insight presented in the Situation Analysis. The strategy should explain how key choices were made, including the prioritisation of audiences, messages, channels or formats. If relevant, entrants may describe any considerations relating to inclusivity, representation or sustainability. They should also explain why this was the right strategy in this context and highlight any areas where the strategic approach was bold, innovative or distinctive.
Judges’ top tips
Judges will reward clarity of thought and well-structured articulation of the strategy. They will look for evidence of how the strategy sets a credible path to achieving the objectives, how the data and insights were interpreted to inform the approach, and where innovation or fresh thinking was applied. Judges will also recognise entries that show how different communication disciplines have been combined to strengthen the overall strategy.
Implementation – 15 marks (400 words)
Please describe how you implemented the project or programme. Entrants should:
- Describe the AI technologies, models or tools used and their specific purpose
- Explain how data quality, accuracy, bias mitigation and compliance were ensured
- Outline how human review, governance and validation were built into workflows
- Demonstrate how AI-informed strategy, decision-making or content optimisation
- Highlight innovations where AI accelerated insight generation, scientific communication or personalisation
- Describe how the AI component integrated with wider communication tactics or channels
- Clearly state partners (companies, organisations and/or professional/advocacy bodies) and their roles in this activity
- Reflect on any lessons learned during development or deployment, including limitations encountered, how risks were managed, and what these insights mean for the responsible future use of AI in healthcare communication
Judges’ top tips
When awarding marks, the judges will reward:
- Transparent, responsible and explainable use of AI
- Clear evidence of human oversight throughout development
- Demonstration of tangible value created by AI (for example, efficiency, precision, insight depth, experience quality)
- Creative and ethical applications of emerging technologies
- Clarity on risks identified and steps taken to mitigate them
- Entries that balance innovation with responsibility. Technical capability alone will not score highly without a clear connection to real-world benefit for stakeholders
- Thoughtful reflection on limitations, learnings and appropriate boundaries for the use of AI
- Work that has influenced future thinking, opened new approaches or contributed to shaping responsible practice, even where large-scale outcome data is not yet available
Effectiveness Part One: Outputs and Outtakes vs Objectives – 10 marks (200 words)
Entrants should describe how successful the work was in delivering the outputs and out-takes defined in the Objectives section. This should include the relevant measurement approaches used. Comments from third-party stakeholders may be included where they formed a planned element of the evaluation and directly support the evidence of impact.
Effectiveness Part Two: Outcomes vs Objectives – 10 marks (200 words)
Entrants should demonstrate the outcomes achieved in relation to the objectives and the benchmarks established in the Situation Analysis. Evaluation methods should be explained clearly, and any third-party comments should be included only if they were part of a pre-planned measurement approach and directly support evidence of impact.
Additional guidance for specific categories
For categories involving emerging technologies such as AI, effectiveness may also be demonstrated through evidence of how the work has advanced understanding, enabled new approaches, strengthened responsible practice or influenced future development, even where large-scale outcome data is not yet available. Entrants should clearly explain the stage of maturity of the work and its potential for impact.
Supporting Materials
Supporting materials should only be submitted where they help judges understand how the work was researched, planned, implemented or evaluated. Materials illustrating how the strategy was brought to life may be included, although a complete set of assets is not required. Information directly supporting evaluation and measurement is particularly valuable. Entrants must provide a summary sheet listing each piece of supporting material and indicating where the evidence referred to in the entry can be found. An approved visual image or video to support publicity and AV production should also be supplied.
Other entry requirements
Entrants must disclose any other companies or organisations involved in delivering the submission, including those contributing to research, creative development, logistics or production.
Work conducted between January 2024 and December 2025 is eligible for submission. Projects or programmes previously entered into the Communiqué Awards must include benchmark data showing how effectiveness has been assessed over time; entries without this information will be excluded from the judging process.
