Table 4 Synopsis of key findings

Study characteristics

• 166 studies, three companion reports

• Widely dispersed literature, originating from North America, and published in English language after 2015

• Most studies were multi-purpose, with mixed methods designs and methods, and were guided by conceptual frameworks, models, theories

• Challenges associated with terminology, definitions and their consistent application were observed

• Few studies focussed on the evaluation or validation of tools

Tool characteristics

• 205 tools, most were surveys/questionnaires of self-reported perceptions; many tools with shared provenance

• Most tools guided by conceptual frameworks, models, theories; few reported evidence of validity or reliability

• Researchers, patients, and the public and community members were most common targets for tools

Partnership characteristics

• Most common partnership approaches were community based participatory research (CBPR), general partnership, patient and public involvement (PPI) and coalitions

• Almost half were initiated by researchers, most involved some level of co-production in one or more study phases, and most were funded by government (ministries, research funders, departments)

Tool evaluation criteria findings

• Tools scored highest on comprehensive and usable domains, but scored lower on involving the partner perspective and lowest on scientific rigour

• Overall, tool evaluation criteria scores were moderate

Future research questions

• Future research questions focussed on developing tools (psychometric and tool testing or refinement), partnership measurement and methods, engagement, revealing factors influencing partnership optimization and the optimization of partnership outcomes and impacts

Reported gaps

• Gaps comprised:

Knowledge about engagement levels and timing

Supporting research teams using partnership approaches

Objective measures of partnership

Structures to support patient and public involvement

Some mention of gaps in the advancement of partnership research and health system strengthening

Reported recommendations

• Authors provided recommendations on:

Structural and other supports for partnerships

Engagement level and timing

Sustainability planning

Advancement of primary research for partnership approaches, terminology and rigorous evaluation