TABLE 1.

Guidance for reporting involvement of patients and the public (GRIPP2) checklist.³⁷

Aim	To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the rapid systematic review research project to ensure PP perspective in the review process and outcomes.
Methods	PPs were recruited through a post on the SCPOR website for research opportunities. Training was integrated into team meetings throughout the review, and additional informal training was provided as needed. PPs were included as collaborators on the research team, participating fully in all aspects of the review from research question refinement to knowledge translation which had equal input for the duration of the project.
Study results	Through their active contributions, PPs helped craft the research question and provided input and insights at each stage of the review. PPs encouraged a team culture of deliberately considering multiple viewpoints during team discussions. PPs lead some stages of the review, specifically the knowledge translation plan and the GRIPP2 checklist content.
Discussion and conclusions	PPs contributed important PP perspectives and lay language. PPs asked provocative and necessary questions at each step of the process and often provided an invaluable lens not only to the research process but to the content as well.
Reflections/critical perspective	Patient Partners: • PPs may want to choose a topic of interest as it is challenging to review content without a personal interest. • PPs received positive feedback from other team members that validated PP contribution during discussions. • PPs were able to ask questions and for clarification during and after meetings. • PPs gained valuable experience in health research and would get involved in future rapid reviews. • PP learned about other team members expertise in their areas of work and perspectives and appreciated a ‘Wonderful opportunity to build a multidisciplinary team that can learn something from everyone’.. • PP had opportunities to step outside of their comfort zone by participating in the review, including being accepted to present at an international conference. • PP should be involved in rapid reviews. PP noted some negatives of their involvement: • Project required extended timelines due to COVID‐19. • Additional and on‐going support may be required if a PP has limited or no experience with rapid reviews or research process. Other team members’: A lack of clarity could have impeded participation without PP’s willingness to ask questions and to communicate needs and workload. Timelines were significantly affected by the pandemic. The willingness of PP to continue with this project in very trying circumstances beyond the agreed time was a significant factor in the completion of this project.

Abbreviation: PP, Patient partner.