Table 2.

A summary of the input and effects following public involvement in study management, implementation and scrutiny

Activity summary	Public contributor input	Effects
Preparation of ethics application	Co‐drafted and reviewed patient‐facing materials	Amended wording to participant information material and data collection tools changed the detail of information provided and ease of reading
Clinical directors survey 39	J. H. member of working group reviewing the structure of the questionnaire by e‐mail	Amendments to the questionnaire and accompanying information
Rapid review 37	B. H. member of working group, took part in telephone meetings	Patient focus included in discussions to generate ‘initial rough theories’
Selection of marker condition (inclusion criteria for analysis) 41	Identified need for additional marker condition, to be used in analysis of patient outcomes	Suggested using feedback from Stakeholder Event to identify a condition with resonance to clinical, managerial and patient attendees. This resulted in ‘headache’ being identified and used
Monitoring response rates to patient interviews 38	Assessed opportunities to encourage response rates because of low patient numbers	Patient information sheets and recruitment letters reworded
		Financial incentive offered to increase patient recruitment
		Letters to be sent on hospital letterhead in white envelopes instead of being university‐badged
Qualitative analysis 38	Involved in identifying themes and synthesizing data	Identified limitation that patient respondents were likely not to reflect all ED attendees since only patients perceiving their behaviour was positive would consent to interview
		Patient interview results will be reported across the study
		Highlighted complexity of models of general practitioners in EDs and local variations
		Confirmation of research themes in line with that of the researchers: quality‐check of analysis process
		Gave researchers insight into data quality, patient experience and complexity of the models reported to help J. H. and B. H. in their role
		Researchers identified additional checking role during the theory‐building stage of analysis and interpretation
Dissemination	J. H. facilitated collection of patient views to inform dissemination planning	J. H. presented to the SUPER public/patient group 43 to explore patient views on how and when to disseminate study results. The following feedback was incorporated within the dissemination strategy:
		• Wait until big findings; interim results less meaningful to patients • Make friends with media to maximize dissemination opportunities at the end of the study
	Prepared lay summaries of all academic outputs	Accessible information about study findings throughout the study, uploaded to a project webpage and widely publicized (http://www.primecentre.wales/gps-in-eds.php)
	Input into Dissemination, Publication and Engagement Strategy	Dissemination and Publication strategy widened to include engagement. Equal opportunity to co‐author outputs confirmed. Co‐authored conference presentations and papers. Contacted the Communications section of Public Involvement and Engagement, Health and Care Research Wales. Volunteered to facilitate engagement with media

Abbreviation: ED, emergency department.