Table 2.

Examples of engagement relationships and evaluation criteria

Engagement category	Definition	Engagement methods	Microlevel engagement examples	Meso/macrolevel engagement examples	Evaluation criteria
Information	Knowledge is communicated from engagement leaders to engaged individuals/groups	Education material Decision aids Online information Conference Webinar Media	Professional‐led: Professional informs the patient on individual long‐term risks of cardiovascular disease.	Professional‐led: Professional education programme to raise public awareness of mental health issues.	Process: Information content, quality, understanding and reach. Outcomes: Change in awareness, knowledge, attitude and behaviours of people engaged.
			Community‐led: Patient takes the initiative of informing professional on side effects of medication.	Community‐led: Patient‐led education programme where patients train health professionals on relationship skills.
Consultation	Knowledge is collected from engaged individuals/groups towards engagement leaders	Interview Survey Focus group Delphi Advisory committee	Professional‐led: Professional consults patient on his preferences for home or institution‐based palliative care, but the orientation of care is ultimately based on a clinical algorithm.	Professional‐led: Research team set up a patient‐advisory committee for input into research questions or guideline recommendation.	Process: Representativeness, reliability, generalizability. Outcomes: Change in knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of engagement leaders, influence on policies.
			Community‐led: Patient consults professional for advice on the use of over‐the‐counter vitamin supplements and makes the final decision by him/herself.	Community‐led: Community group consults scientific advisors to validate the content of public campaign documents
Participation	Knowledge is exchanged between engagement leaders and engaged people.	Committee participation Deliberative meeting Consensus conference Nominal group technique Deliberative polling Task force Town hall meeting	Professional‐led: Parents contribute to implementing a professionally led home‐care plan for a sick child by exchanging information with the clinic.	Professional‐led: Professionally led practice guideline group invite patients to the guideline development panel.	Process: Information exchange, inclusivity, independence, fairness. Outcome: Mutual learning and influence between engaged parties, informed collective proposal, influence on policies.
			Community‐led: Parents initiate deliberation with clinical ethicists on care options for their child while keeping leadership on the decision.	Community‐led: Parent association host deliberative panel between clinicians, researchers, youths and parents to improve mental health services.
Partnership	Engaged parties colead (governance), cobuild (process) and are coaccountable (results) for a common initiative being carried together.	Codesign Shared decision‐makinga Coconstructiona Coproductiona	Co‐led: Shared decision‐making between patient and professional in establishing clinical agenda, generating and implementing care options, coassessing progress and being coresponsible for health results.	Co‐led: Community members and professionals colead a project where patients, clinicians and citizens care together for people with social and medical issues.	Process: Partners' relationships; sharing of power, resources and information; trust. Outcome: Partnership synergy, sustained collaborative efforts, collective production of care, knowledge, services and policies.
Activism	Engagement leaders challenge existing power relationships and social structures to change the status quo (including social norms, embedded practices, policies or the dominance of certain social groups).	Protest Lawsuit (Social) media campaign Civil disobedience Petitions Boycott Walkouts	Professional‐led: Medical activism to challenge health insurer coverage restriction for a single patient.	Professional‐led: Health professionals initiate media campaigns to change tobacco policies.	Process: Coalition‐building, prepare/communicate convincing data and rationales, lobby policymakers. Outcome: Change in power distribution, group dominance, institutional structure, social norms, practices and policies.
			Community‐led: Patient advocates for his/her right to access a specific treatment from his/her insurer.	Community‐led: Women groups challenge medical dominance over childbirth and advocate for legal recognition of midwives.

^a Engagement approaches labelled as ‘codesign’, ‘shared decision‐making’, ‘coconstruction’ or ‘coproduction’ are best classified in the partnership category when leadership is shared between parties. However, they are best classified in the information, consultation or participation category when leadership is held by a single party (e.g., ‘codesign’ of health technology led by engineers where patients are consulted at the initial or pilot testing stage, ‘coproduction’ of research led by scientists where citizens are engaged in crowdsourcing of data collection, ‘shared decision‐making’ on antidepressant medication choice where agenda‐setting is led by clinicians only and patient is consulted on the choice of drug).

^bEngagement approaches labelled as ‘committee participation’ are best classified in the consultation category when the committee is structured around a collection of opinions, feedback, advice and recommendations with little or no information exchange (membership in a citizen advisory council). The defining characteristic of participation methods is two‐way interaction and influence between engagement leaders and participants.