Table 4. Public and patient engagement priority setting process for health research summary.

TIER 1 Public and Patient Engagement Priority Setting Processes for Health Research
	James Lind Alliance—Priority Setting Partnerships [10, 16, 24, 34, 35, 42, 43]	Dialogue Model	Global Evidence Mapping	Deep Inclusion / CHAT Method
	Identify and prioritize public, patient, and clinician shared uncertainties about the effects of treatments across health conditions	Needs and priorities of patients and the public as a starting point for dialogue about research to improve health practice	Identify research questions which are mapped to available evidence for high-priority questions	Equity-oriented research priority setting by prioritizing input from minority or underserved populations
Key process/Steps	Question gathering Question analysis Question prioritization Question integration Research Question or Treatment uncertainties summary	Question exploration Question consultation Question prioritization Question integration Question programming Question implementation Question Dissemination	Question development Question prioritization Evidence search and selection Data extraction Research Implementation	A. Planning Phase 1Aims of priority setting process clarified 2Priority setting mechanism identified 3Ground rules established 4Participation determined 5Strategies to promote qualitative equality developed 6Mode of non-elite participation determined B. Identify Research Questions and Criteria Phase 7Health research topics/questions identified 8Ranking criteria identified 9Weights for ranking criteria identified C. Selecting Priorities Phase 10Ranking criteria and weights to health research topics/question applied 11Final set of priority health research topics/questions determined
Sampling	Users or ‘patients’ of a service Carers (e.g., care worker, relatives, spouses) Third sector representing organization Specialists (e.g., specialist knowledge on topic)	Patient/carer Researcher Decision-makers (including policy makers and researchers) Stakeholders are consulted separately to address potential asymmetry	Researchers Health professionals, Government agencies Patient support organizations People living with condition and a carer for someone with condition	Who—Number of participants in each category How—Strategies to address issues relating to disabilities, low socio-economic status, ethnic group representation When: Promoting entry points for engagement
Cost	Rarely reported Approximately $50,000CAD	None reported	None reported	None reported
Timeline	Up to 18 months	Up to 13 months	Unclear Preliminary literature review 5–8 weeks	None reported
Outcomes	Successful in setting priorities that are inclusive and objectively based Identifies differences in priorities of different stakeholders Presents opportunities to identify potential research gaps	Successful in prioritizing research questions specific to condition and populations	Successful in prioritizing research questions specific to condition Gaps in research are identified	Successful in prioritizing research focus groups specific to condition
Strengths	Robust, strategic multi-step approach Well recognized in literature for ability to identify priorities based on several treatment/condition ‘uncertainties’	Highly feasible	Uses a combination of activities to ensure prioritization of research questions is derived from multiple sources of evidence Identification of research gaps from multiple forms of evidence Synthesizes evidence in a meaningful way to capture priority esearch interest across diverse stakeholders	Clear process on ho to ensure equity in representation in priority setting