TABLE 2.

Summary of consumer involvement in the research

Reference	Consumers	Involvement methods	Time points	Level of involvement 32
Anderson et al 36	HCWs and 8 patients	Preliminary drafts of the questionnaire were refined with input from HCWs and patients	Single time point, before participant data collection	Consult
Lee et al 37	2 patients	Key informant interviews with patients. Interviews included in the final evidence synthesis	Single time point, after literature review, before a Health Technology Assessment report finalisation	Consult
McCaughan et al 38	3 patient advisors	Patient adviser involvement throughout the research. Topic guide for interviews developed and piloted with input from patient advisers. Contribution from patient advisors on data analysis and comments on early draft of study findings	Multiple time points, development, pilot, and results interpretation	Involve
McNair et al 39	2 patient representatives acknowledged in the paper, and one coauthor appears to be a consumer	Phase 1: patient representatives were involved in questionnaire domain generation—interviews with patients to inform domains PROMS verified with involvement of one patient questionnaire piloted by patients for face validity, understanding, and acceptability and modified as a result of the feedback Phase 2: patients' essential stakeholders in second Delphi phase Phase 3: consensus meetings with patients, caregivers, and surgeons to finalise the core set	Multiple time points through research phases 1, 2, and 3, development, pilot, and results interpretation	Collaborate
Reeves et al 40	1 patient representative	Patient representative on steering committee: two PPI meetings to discuss RCT design and protocol elements. One PPI member also read and commented on lay summary of report	Multiple time points through research process: inception, design, and results dissemination	Unable to assess
Sanger et al 41	The research team included a patient who experienced a postoperative infection—no further details provided	Not reported	Not reported	Consult
Sanger et al 42	The research team included 1 patient advisor who previously experienced a postdischarge SSI. A second group of 6 patient advocates	The patient adviser was involved in “all aspects,” including study design, data analysis, technology development, and manuscript preparation. The patient advisor represented the patients' perspective at weekly team meetings A second group of 6 patients were interviewed as part of the design refinement. This group of patients were patient advocates who had previously volunteered to advise the hospital on matters affecting patients	Multiple time points through research process; design, analysis, and results dissemination	Collaborate
Wiseman et al 43	A community‐based research advisory focus group	A preliminary draft of the survey was developed and informed by a community‐based research advisory focus group: CARDS. CARDS are trained patient advisors who advise researchers and reflect the views of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups seldom represented in research planning and activities. The CARDS input and feedback provided a “patient's perspective” that informed survey development	Single time point during the preliminary drafting of the survey	Consult

Abbreviations: CARDS: Community Advisors on Research Design and Strategy; HCW, health care workers.