Stage 1: defining and aligning the objective(s) and question(s)

The topic of interest for this scoping review emerged from informal consultations and requests author JS received over the past few years from other researchers in the field attempting to understand how to optimally recruit patients as co-researchers in PPI research. The initial impetus for the paper was driven by these discussions while consultations with PPI experts further narrowed down research objectives. This was further underscored by the lack of literature that existed comprehensively exploring such strategies. Thus, when formulating the research question, the central concept of recruitment strategies was identified, specifically in the context of advisory boards, groups or panels composed of patients, carers and members of the public. As mentioned above, this type of involvement of patients, carers and members of the public is common in PPI research, yet specific means of recruiting said individuals to boards, groups or panels remains unclear. This led to the formulation of our research question:

What strategies are used to recruit patients, carers and other members of the public as co-researchers, peer-researchers, steering committee members or research advisors, to advisory boards, groups or panels within participatory and public and patient involved health research?

Stage 2: developing and aligning the inclusion criteria with the objective(s) and question(s)

To adequately capture the full scope of available literature to answer our research question and seek out the most relevant literature, we iteratively developed a set of eligibility criteria, presented in table 1. While PPI and other participative approaches to knowledge co-creation may involve diverse stakeholders depending on context, we have decided to narrow the research focus to only patient, carers and other non-clinical/non-research partners. This focus emerged from informal consultation with experts in the field, where author JS identified that researchers had few issues in identifying clinical and decision-maker research partners, but reported difficulty in knowing where to begin to identify and recruit patients, carers and members of the public in an ethical, appropriate and representative way. Thus, the population of interest is adults who are patients, carers or members of the public. Other stakeholders, including clinicians, managers and other decision-makers will be excluded, as they fall outside the scope of need for this review (table 1). Children and youth are excluded from our population of interest as there are ethical differences in recruiting and engaging with these populations. To be included, studies must therefore be health or social care focused, involve patients, carers or members of the public in the form of advisory boards, groups or panels and be of primary study design.

Stage 3: describing the planned approach to evidence searching, selection, data extraction and presentation of the evidence

A comprehensive literature search of a heterogeneous group of electronic databases is critical to achieving rigour in scoping reviews.15 After consultation with international PPI experts from a variety of backgrounds (ie, health policy, primary care and global health) and geographical locations (ie, Ireland, UK and Canada), as well as a faculty librarian, the search terms highlighted in online supplemental appendix 1 were identified. Consultations took place with community, organisational and expert partners before initiating this project to guide the development of our research objectives and question. These initial consultations helped to guide selection of search terms used in preliminary searches to ensure the most appropriate body of literature would be captured to answer our question. Search terms (online supplemental appendix 1) will be used to search MEDLINE (PubMed), MEDLINE (OVID), Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. Embase was an added database based on advice from the faculty librarian. While recognising that Scopus captures grey literature, we will also include a search of Open Grey to ensure we capture the breadth of literature available. A supplemental document outlining the search strategy for all databases is available in online supplemental appendix 2. To appropriately cover the research objectives while acknowledging feasibility and time constraints, the literature search criteria was narrowed, removing certain terms like community-based participatory research. The inclusion of this search string would generate an abundance of publications which would render the scoping review infeasible. Furthermore, we will complete the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist, outlined in online supplemental appendix 3, to ensure accuracy in our reporting.16 The approach to selecting the evidence, data extraction and presentation of the evidence will be discussed in stages 5–8.

Stage 4: searching for the evidence

The search strategy methodology follows the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual three-step process.17 First, we conducted a preliminary search in MEDLINE (PubMed) to ensure our search terms to be used across all databases adequately captured all keywords and subheadings. We searched and revised our search terms to capture the most appropriate body of literature. Second, we sought input from a broad community of experts, through formal and informal conversations, to frame our search criteria and to identify any additional keywords for consideration. We will use the identified search terms to search across all of the databases listed in stage 3. Lastly, we will review the references from articles selected for the review and extract any relevant articles. The complete search strategy from CINAHL, one of the major databases used, is outlined in the online supplemental appendix 4.

Stage 5: selecting the evidence

Once searches of each database are complete, the references will be extracted and imported into Distiller SR, a scoping review software.18 Two independent reviewers (EK and MG) will screen the identified literature by title and abstract following the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, outlined in table 1. Each reviewer will independently complete a selection screening tool, presented in online supplemental appendix 5, to help guide this process. The two reviewers will meet periodically throughout the reviewing process to discuss conflicts. A third reviewer (JS) will arbitrate any remaining conflicts. Inter-rater agreement will be calculated using the kappa statistic. The articles included after title and abstract screening will be screened at full text based on our inclusion criteria and will be used for the final extraction and analysis of the evidence.

Stage 6: extracting the evidence

A tabular chart (table 2) will be used to ensure the most relevant information is extracted from each of the included references. Extracted evidence will be analysed using NVivo software.19 Authors will use this more formal analytical approach to thoroughly and thematically identify themes that emerge to better understand how they address the four research objectives guiding this review.

Stage 7: analysis of the evidence

A descriptive narrative summary of the varying recruitment methods used across the selected literature will be completed. Thematic analysis will then be conducted to identify key themes, as suggested by Levac et al, using qualitative description following the guidance of Braun and Clarke.20–22 This will be analysed by all three authors and the same community, organisational and expert partners that were consulted before initiating this project.

It is critical to avoid pre-empting the findings of the scoping review and we will therefore employ strategies from Braun and Clarke, including their ‘15-point checklist of criteria for good thematic analysis’ to ensure precision in collecting and summarising the results.22 23 While it is suggested that a board, group or committee should be organised in advance of a study proposal, this is not something that will be explicitly addressed in the scoping review, but may reveal itself in the recruitment challenges uncovered.7

Stage 8: presentation of the results

As discussed in stage 6, a tabular chart will be used to present the results, addressing our five key objectives. The table will be organised by our overarching research objectives, where we will subsequently discuss each included study. We will also present a summary of evidence by a piece of literature included in our review exploring in detail the population, recruitment strategies and outcomes. Findings will be organised into thematic categories including the aims of the retained studies, recruitment design, study design, key findings and gaps uncovered in the literature. Further organisation will include categories that highlight theoretical and operational linkages in the literature.

Stage 9: summarising the evidence in relation to the purpose of the review, making conclusions and noting any implications of the findings

A narrative summary describing the thematic analysis undertaken will be presented in our full scoping review. By understanding the optimal strategies of recruiting patients, carers and members of the public to advisory boards, groups or panels, the development of meaningful research and new partnerships will be strengthened. We expect findings from this scoping review will have implications in guiding future research recruitment and policy developments.

Public and patient involvement statement

PPI will be integrated throughout this project. International PPI experts, stakeholders and members of the local academic community were consulted to form the search strategy.