TABLE A3.

Detailed information on compliance of studies with the GRIPP2 checklist ⁶

Reference	1. Aim: report the aim of PPI in the study	2. Methods: provide a clear description of the methods used for PPI in the study	3. Study results: outcomes—report the results of PPI in the study including both positive and negative outcomes	4. Discussion and conclusions—outcomes on the extent to which PPI influenced the study overall. Describe positive and negative effects	5. Reflections/critical perspectives comment critically on the study, reflecting on things that went well and those that did not, so others can learn from this experience
Anderson et al 36		Preliminary drafts of the questionnaire were refined with input from a sample of 8 patients.
Lee et al 37		Included in key informant interviews on experiences and perspectives of using PGHD in the postoperative SSI setting, which was included in the final data synthesis		Highlights importance of having a broad stakeholder group involved in design process, although does not provide examples specific to consumer involvement
McCaughan et al 38	Three patient advisors to act as key informants throughout study	Design and piloting of interview guide and feedback on study findings and early drafts	Involvement in research process was a key strength, which helped to shape interview methodology and interpretation	Contributions were crucial to reflection on the meaning of the interview data and its interpretation
McNair et al 39	To define a COS for use in trials and other studies, agreed upon by patients	Patient representative involved grouping patient‐related outcomes into different domains. Patients and carers involved in consensus meetings to vote on final list of the COS	As a result of the consensus meeting, patients identified domains, which had overlapping content or themes and voted for them to be combined to prevent confusion
Reeves et al 40	To work with a PPI group to inform the conduct and design of a future RCT	Patient representative on steering committee. Two PPI meetings to discuss RCT design elements and how to best engage with future participants	PPI involvement influenced the design of a patient information leaflet to be more user‐friendly, the design and delivery of a wound‐experience questionnaire, strategies for improving adherence to trial allocation in future RCT and ways to incorporate PGHD including digital photos of wounds	PPI meetings changed RCT protocol and design elements including considerations for adherence, reducing participant dropout, and completion time for questionnaires	To ensure clarity about the role of PPI work, to make the best use of PPI panel members' and researchers' time
Sanger et al 41				Including patient as part of multidisciplinary team was a core strength of the study, although did not report what specifically they contributed
Sanger et al 42	To represent the patients' perspective contributing to the development of a paint‐centred data collection tool (mPOWER)	Patient advisor and patient advocates involved in study design, data analysis, technology development, and manuscript preparation. “Think‐aloud” approach utilised		Agreement and conflict between patient advisors/advocates and providers impeded design and adoption of mobile technology interface	Highlights importance of an iterative design process, to ensure ongoing input and preventing overshadowing of ideas. Acknowledgement of potential self‐selection bias with recruitment of patient advisors from a pre‐existing panel
Wiseman et al 43	A community‐based research advisory focus group was used to provide feedback and a patient's perspective	To develop and inform a preliminary survey draft to assess smartphone capability in outpatient wound assessment

Abbreviations: COS, core outcome set; GRIPP2, Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public; PGHD, patient‐generated health data; PPI, patient and public involvement; RCT, randomised control trial; SSI, surgical site infection.