F1000Research F1000Research 2046-1402 F1000 Research Limited London, UK 10.12688/f1000research.170078.1 Study Protocol Articles Engagement Methods for Populations Underrepresented in Mental Health Services Research Partnerships in High-income Countries:  A Participatory Scoping Review Protocol

[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]

 Tabb Karen Conceptualization Data Curation Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Supervision Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4722-9502 a 1 Schaefer Ana Conceptualization Project Administration Resources Supervision Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing 1 Ramirez Xavier Investigation Methodology Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5885-3239 2 Toole Eric Conceptualization Data Curation Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Supervision Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6445-8211 1 Feng Yali Conceptualization Data Curation Investigation Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 3 Lux Emily Investigation Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 4 5 Mowery Jomeka Investigation Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 6 Windham Tinelle Investigation Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 4 Helfner Sasha Investigation Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 1 Gandhi Shivranjani Investigation Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 1 Ye Yulian Investigation Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 1 Hodge Ashley Investigation Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 6 Yorks Courtney Investigation Methodology Writing – Review & Editing 7 Huang Wenhao David Methodology Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0498-7485 2 Simonovich Shannon Investigation Methodology Visualization Writing – Review & Editing 3 Mackie Thomas Conceptualization Funding Acquisition Investigation Methodology Project Administration Resources Supervision Writing – Original Draft Preparation Writing – Review & Editing 8 University of Massachusetts System, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA School of Social Work, University of Illinois System, Urbana, Illinois, 61801, USA University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA Lifeline for Moms Individuals with Lived Expertise Advisory Council, Massachusetts, USA Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina university, Greenville, NC, USA PSI, Postpartum Support International, Portland, Oregon, USA Department of Health Promotion and Policy, School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA ktabb@illinois.edu

No competing interests were disclosed.

 6 5 2026 2026 15 675 2 3 2026 Copyright: © 2026 Tabb K et al. 2026 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Abstract* Background

Advancing effective treatments and interventions to improve mental health services and outcomes requires the full and meaningful participation of communities underrepresented in research partnerships. In recent years a trend has emerged of involving members of groups as researchers, partners, or participants in patient-centered clinical comparative effectiveness research that past research has typically ignored with little to no engagement. The aim of this scoping review is to identify the engagement approaches and strategies that have been used to engage populations underrepresented in partnerships for mental health services research.

 Methods

The participatory scoping review will employ the methodological framework initially proposed by Arksey and O’Malley. We will search MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science from all time through December 2024. A participatory approach will engage co-investigators with lived expertise of mental health challenges and Advisory Council members throughout the review. A modified Delphi Panel will facilitate interpretation of findings.

 Results

Preliminary findings will generate a descriptive summary of engagement methods, inclusive of engagement approaches and strategies, used with populations underrepresented in mental health services research. For the identified engagement approaches, we plan to provide a descriptive summary of the articulated principles and application of each engagement approach. For the engagement strategies, we plan to summarize for each engagement strategy: (1) the goal, (2) the population(s) engaged, (3) key procedures and resources, and (4) findings from process and/or impact evaluations. The structure of the descriptive summaries and interpretation of findings will be informed by the community co-investigators, advisory council members, and experts who will be convened through a modified delphi panel.

 Discussion

Our participatory scoping review of all mental health services research using engagement strategies will produce evidence-based guidance to improve approaches to engagement in PCOR/CER and establish a science of engagement.

 Research Engagement Mental Health Services Health Services Research Patient Participation Community Participation Review Literature Study Characteristics Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute SOE-2023C1-3137 This work was supported through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Science of Engagement Award SOE-2023C1-31371. All statements in this report, including its findings and conclusions, are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Introduction

Engagement of individuals from communities underrepresented in academic-community research partnerships (hereafter, “communities underrepresented in research”) provides a foundation critical for building the evidence base needed to create and sustain the structural changes required to advance mental health equity. 1 As operationally defined by members of our community-academic partnership, communities underrepresented in research may include, but are not limited to, groups who are racially and ethnically minoritized, sexual and gender minorities, children or youth, pregnant or postpartum individuals, and people with disabilities. These groups may experience racism and other forms of oppression that limit their participation as research partners and ultimately their ability to receive the full benefits of recent advances in the evidence base for mental healthcare. 2 Engagement of communities underrepresented in research can help to identify the unexamined assumptions that often create barriers to facilitate equitable access to scientific advances in policy and practice. 3 For example, integration of perspectives from key community partners can improve our ability to anticipate and examine potential unintended consequences of advancing evidence from mental health services research into policy and practice 4, 5 Moreover, meaningful engagement in mental health service research can also increase the relevance, acceptability, appropriateness, and sustainability of equity-focused evidence-based interventions and strategies. 6– 8 Increasingly, calls to the field of mental health services research recognize that progress towards the real-world solutions required to achieve mental health equity will not be fully realized until the people most impacted by mental healthcare inequities are routinely engaged in mental health services research as researchers 9 and research partners. 10

Yet, individuals from communities underrepresented in research experience unique historical, structural, sociopolitical, and cultural factors that influence their engagement across the research process. 6– 8 Bearing the memories of a history of unethical research conduct, individuals from communities underrepresented in research report a lack of trust in research partnerships. 11, 12 Individuals underrepresented in research partnerships also report an additional set of unique challenges in attending to the social, structural, and political conditions necessary for meaningful research engagement. 12 Despite these unique barriers to research engagement and promise of their engagement, scoping and systematic reviews of engagement methods in mental health services research have largely not accounted for the specific strategies required to engage individuals from communities who are underrepresented in mental health research partnerships. 6, 13– 15

The objective of this participatory scoping review is therefore to synthesize the evidence available on engagement methods, inclusive of both engagement approaches and strategies, developed for individuals underrepresented in mental health services research partnerships. While scoping reviews for engagement approaches and strategies exist, 6 our study will extend this work by assembling and assessing the relevance of available evidence for communities underrepresented in mental health services research partnerships. In addition, we will work collaboratively with community partners at every step of this scoping review. Published guidance and a rapid review of seminal studies suggests that we will need both qualitative and quantitively captured data given the emerging status of the literature on engagement and the lack of consensus on terminology and shared definitions. 16 Accordingly, we employ a scoping review to assess an emerging evidence base on engagement approaches and strategies in mental health services research.

Protocol

We will conduct a participatory scoping review, grounding our collaborative approach in the steps articulated in the Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews and enhanced for team-based collaborative approaches. 17– 19 This scoping review will comprise of the following steps as guided by the framework: 1) specifying the research questions, 2) identifying relevant literature, 3) selection of studies, 4) data extraction, 5) synthesis of results, and 6) integration of expert consensus. In preparation for this protocol, our team consulted two well-established advisory councils, the Lifeline for Moms Advisory Council for Individuals with Lived Expertise and the Postpartum Support International (PSI) Best Practice Committee for Health Equity. Members of these advisory councils identify as individuals with their own lived expertise of perinatal mental health challenges and/or as professionals who provide care to perinatal individuals with mental health challenges; both of the councils are also composed of individuals from communities underrepresented in research partnerships [citation blinded for peer-review]. Members of both advisory councils shared that lived expertise is an important type of evidence that is often not integrated into evidence synthesis projects. In response, our team will work collaboratively with key community partners from both advisory councils to facilitate a community-engaged and interdisciplinary approach at each of the six stages proposed in Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework. We will co-develop the protocol screening tools with our partners. We will present findings iteratively to our advisory councils during each stage of review. We conducted the first two stages of our methodological framework for the scoping review (i.e., specifying the research question, identifying the relevant literature) in preparation for this protocol. The final four stages of the scoping review (i.e., selection of studies, data extraction, synthesis of results, and integration of expert consensus) were completed after our initial protocol registration [DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/6E2CX].

 Stage 1. Specifying the research questions

In collaboration with our community co-investigators and advisory councils, we identified the following primary and secondary research questions that this scoping review aims to address:

Primary Research Question:

What is the best available and existing evidence on engagement methods for individuals underrepresented in mental health services research partnerships?

Secondary Research Question:

How can the information across multiple studies resulting from the scoping review inform the selection of engagement methods to advance the research partnership, especially for individuals from communities underrepresented in research partnerships?

The primary research question was developed to cast a wide net on the existing evidence base to ensure the assembly of information from “multiple ways of knowing” on each engagement strategy. Moreover, the secondary research question sought to ensure consideration for a pragmatic application of the findings to support individuals underrepresented in mental health services research partnerships. By engaging community co-investigators in this step, the research team was able to ensure that the research question aligned with the topics that interested the community partners. 20

Stage 2. Identifying relevant literature

In collaboration with community co-investigators, community advisory councils, and librarian scientists, our team identified the key terms related to the concepts of interest. Table 1 provides the population, comparison, outcome, timing, setting framework that guided this participatory scoping review. This scoping review was difficult due to the lack of standardized language used for 1) underrepresented populations and 2) engagement methods. Due to this lack of standardized language, our team of community and academic investigators worked to create shared operational definitions integrating the lived expertise of our council members with terminology identified in relevant peer reviewed literature. This strengthened our understanding of the types of relevant literature that we were looking to identify.

Description of construct and operational definition for population, comparison, outcome, timing, setting.
Construct Operational Definition Screening
Inclusion Exclusion
Population Underrepresented populations Populations underrepresented in PCOR/CER include younger age, race, ethnicity, disability status, gender identity, sexual identity, pregnancy and postpartum, low-income, immigrants, refugees, and spiritual tradition. Under 18 Race Ethnicity Disability status Gender identity Sexual identity Pregnancy Up to a year postpartum Low income Immigration status Spiritual tradition Population that does not align with the associated populations
Intervention Engagement method Engagement methods include the structure (e.g. advisory council) and processes (e.g. nominal group technique) that aim to support partnership and elicitation of perspectives from research partners. Engagement Structure Engagement Process Engagement Method Medical or Clinical Interventions
Comparison N/A
Outcome Impact on engagement/partnership, partner, research process, and research translation Outcomes include meaningful engagement and partnership of key community partners (e.g., trust, transparency), impact on research partner, the research itself (e.g., prioritization of study topics or outcomes), or the translation and impact of the research (e.g., social media campaigns). N/A- We will plan to tag each article for the presence or absence of the for outcome of the engagement methods instead of excluding due to a lack of outcome.
Timing N/A
Setting Mental health services research in high income countries including PCOR/CER Mental health services research therefore investigates how social factors, financing systems, organizational structures and processes, health technologies, and personal behaviors affect access to mental health care, the quality and cost of mental health care, and ultimately our mental health and well-being. Mental Health PCOR studies Mental Health CER studies Mental Health Services Research Studies that are not focused on mental health services research

An evidence synthesis librarian from the University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries’ Evidence Synthesis Partnership (ET) designed and executed the database search strategies and contributed to the development of the present protocol. Drawing on the PCIOTS framework (see Table 1), the broad scope of inquiry for this review was translated into a database search strategy by separating it into three analytical elements: underserved or marginalized communities (concept 1); engagement methods (concept 2); and mental health services and substance use disorders (concept 3). Each broader concept was further expanded by incorporating terminology and synonyms for narrower sub-concepts. For example, the sub-concept Native Americans and Indigenous peoples was included within the underserved/marginalized communities concept. A comprehensive set of search terminology, consisting of controlled vocabulary (e.g., Medical Subject Headings, MeSH) and free-text appearing in the title and abstract bibliographic fields, was compiled for each of the search concepts and sub-concepts.

In the case of the Native American and Indigenous peoples sub-concept, an existing search filter ( https://doi.org/10.1079/searchRxiv/20220088911) that builds on earlier work by Sandra Cambell was adapted through consultation with UMass Amherst’s Native American and Indigenous Studies Librarian Brandon Castle to ensure a comprehensive treatment of group affiliations and identities. The original search filter was further elaborated through additions relating to Alaska Native peoples, and Indigenous peoples of United States overseas territories (e.g., the Chamorro people). The engagement methods concept (concept 2) was significantly complicated by the large range of relevant terms used to describe engagement techniques, the tendency for these terms to be used in unrelated contexts (e.g., networking, café, online community), and sometimes casual reporting of the engagement techniques applied. To identify terminology used to describe specific engagement methods, members of the review team with content expertise reviewed a set of key articles and harvested key terms and phrases. Variations in search terminology were tested to expand the specific methods and incorporate name variants. In addition, the librarian scientist utilized the PCORI Engagement in Health Research Literature Explorer (EHRLE) tool to create a validation reference set by exporting references tagged with the Stakeholder/Partner Type ‘Patients.’ A list of PMIDs was created for all 494 references that were indexed in PubMed and searched against the search string for concept 2 during development to provide objective feedback. Further search strings were developed that reflect the many types of community groups combined with engagement terms (e.g., citizen involvement, community stakeholder). The final version of the concept 2 search strategy returned 474 (96%) of the validation references. This was considered satisfactory because EHRLE was used as a proxy for target articles without verification by content experts that all 494 references actually met the eligibility criteria for our project.

Search concepts were continually checked by the PIs and other expert members of the review team throughout the initial search development process, and the final draft version was reviewed again before the search strategy was peer-reviewed by a second expert librarian. Michele Datko, MLS, completed the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategy (PRESS) review of the original version only (without translations) and offered suggested revisions on items 2,3,4 and 6 (see PRESS documentation). These changes were all accepted, and revisions incorporated to produce the final revised version of the search strategy.

The final search strategy was translated from the original version developed in PubMed to the following secondary databases: CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), APA PsycInfo (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate Web of Science), SciELO (Clarivate Web of Science), BIOSIS Citation Index (Clarivate Web of Science). All searches were executed on October 17 th, 2024 and cover the period from each database’s inception to the search date without limiting by publication year. Export files were uploaded to Covidence, and the built-in deduplication tool was used to remove duplicate references.

 Stage 3. Selection of studies

The selection of studies will be conducted within the Covidence software platform by the research team and three community co-investigators, following Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) scoping review framework and subsequent enhancements for transparency and rigor. Consistent with Levac et al. (2010), the inclusion of community co-investigators in the screening and selection process strengthens methodological rigor by incorporating lived expertise, ensuring that the review captures evidence that is both relevant and meaningful to underrepresented populations. All screeners will complete a tutorial on the aims of the study and the key words that must be included in titles and abstracts when reviewing within Covidence prior to completing each stage of screening .

To best prepare our team for a rigorous scoping review we will guide study screening and selection using Covidence software to complete four steps. First, we will prepare for search calibration and scoping review training. We will present the concept to community co-investigators in the form of a methods training video. Those who are interested in conducting a scoping review will be invited to an orientation and second training. All team members, including community co-investigators, will participate in an orientation session to review the inclusion and exclusion criteria and practice applying them to a small sample of studies in Covidence. Discrepancies in terminology and definitions will be discussed to ensure a shared understanding and consistency in decision-making.

Second, we will train for title and abstract screening. After uploading all search results into Covidence and performing the de-duplication procedure, we will screen all titles and abstracts. Duplicates will first be removed using Covidence for de-duplication. Remaining citations will be cross-checked in EndNote for duplication and then be reviewed manually for additional de-duplication. Reviewers will individually read the title and abstract to evaluate appropriateness for inclusion for review. Each study title will be reviewed by two members of our team. In the event of a disagreement, a senior investigator will evaluate the study title for inclusion. To facilitate the engagement of community co-investigators in the third step of screening titles and abstracts, the team will provide a tutorial and summary, colloquially referred to as the “cheat sheet,” to facilitate easier review of the titles and abstracts. The “cheat sheet” will be provided to clearly outline the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the project. We will use the highlights feature within Covidence to ensure that key terms are caught within each record. The following criteria were developed in collaboration with community co-investigators to guide the review process: Inclusion criteria highlights words including community, participatory, lived experience, engagement, engage, dialogue, convene, co-design, advisory, board, counselor, expert, stakeholder, member, co-researcher, mental health, research, and research engagement in the title or abstract. Exclusion criteria highlight studies that use the words scoping reviews, systematic reviews, preceding case studies, protocols, autoethnographies, meta-analyses, conference proceedings, book reviews, literature reviews, studies focused on HIV or stroke, editorials, commentaries, or ethnographies in the title or abstract. Each record will be screened independently by two reviewers within Covidence. Covidence will automatically track reviewer decisions and flag conflicts. Discrepancies will be resolved through discussion, with a third reviewer (from the research team or a community co-investigator) available to adjudicate when consensus cannot be reached.

Third, we will conduct a full-text review of studies that pass the title and abstract review that potentially contain information about engagement methods with populations underrepresented in mental health services research. Full-text articles of potentially eligible studies will be uploaded into Covidence. Two reviewers will independently assess each full text against the inclusion and exclusion criteria using the first set of questions from the extraction table ( Table 2). Initial screening, prior to extraction, will confirm eligibility through an assessment of whether the study identifies an engagement method name, specifies the population engaged in the research partnership, addresses an area of mental health services research, is conducted in a high-income country, and includes a description or use of engagement. Full-text articles will be excluded if they are the wrong study type or format (e.g., commentary, case study with no results, systematic review, protocol/design paper, duplicate, or non-English), if they lack an underrepresented population or engagement method, if they are not related to mental health services research or conducted in the a country not categorized as high-income such as low or middle income countries (LMIC), or if they have a methodological mismatch such as the wrong design, setting, intervention, indication, dose, route of administration, comparator, or outcomes. Covidence will document reasons for exclusion at this stage. Each study abstract will be reviewed by two members of our team. Any disagreements will be assessed by a third reviewer.

Extraction template to include within covidence.
Phase Category Variable
Initial Screening to Confirm Eligibility
Engagement method name
Population engaged in research partnership
Area of mental health services research
Country
Description or use of engagement
Complete Extraction Protocol Following Confirmation of Eligibility
General Information
Title of paper
Lead author contact email
Study funding sources/agency
Award/funding number
Characteristics of Included Studies
Aim of article
Research study design
Area of mental health services research
Research study data collection start date
Research engagement start date
Study participants sample description
Total number of study participants
Reported age of study participants
Engagement and Research Partnership
Description of engagement and research partnership
Literature referenced for engagement method
Resources required for engagement
Methods used to identify, recruit, and engage research partners
Stage of research study where engagement occurred
Reported targeted barriers to engagement and research partnership
Description of how the research team balanced the perspectives of the partners
Process Evaluation
Fidelity or process measures of the engagement and/or research partnership
Description of evaluation processes
Fidelity measures or process evaluations associated with engagement
Impact or Outcomes
Evaluation of engagement method and research partnership
Evaluation regarding the engagement structure/process/outcome that was conducted
Description of population engaged as research partners
Category of population engaged in engagement and research partnership
Total number of research partners
Reported age of research partners
Reported impact on engagement and research partnership and outcomes
Foundational expectations explicitly stated as a goal for the engagement
Reported engagement and research partnership levels
Were any of our research team members cited on the study?
Other Report of any financial, or personal connections that may be a conflict of interest as a reviewer of the study?

Fourth, all steps will be documented and captured within Covidence for transparency. Covidence will generate a flow diagram (PRISMA-ScR) showing the number of studies identified, screened, included, and excluded, along with reasons for exclusion. All decisions and rationales will be recorded to maintain transparency and reproducibility. Weekly inter-rater review meetings will be held to discuss any questions related to the search process. In addition, the team will hold “office hours” to allow time for members of the community-academic partnership to work independently in the same virtual space and answer any questions as they arise.

 Stage 4. Data extraction

After finalizing the articles remaining for full-text review, we will develop and use a project-specific data extraction tool within Covidence to systematically extract information from each study. The extraction variables ( Table 2) include the full text inclusion criteria and a further set of variables. Starting with the description of engagement, this extraction tool includes the name and definition of the engagement method, its core elements, and related fidelity or process measures (if available), barriers to engagement addressed, and a detailed description of the population engaged. Additional study-level information will be extracted, including study design, research aims, methods, outcomes, and findings, as well as general study information such as funding sources and authorship, and any reported conflicts of interest. Data extraction will be completed by two team members and then reviewed by a third member to ensure accuracy. Prior to extraction, the team will conduct consensus training and pilot the extraction tool across 10–15 articles to ensure consistent and reliable data capture across all articles. This will allow the team to ensure that the data extraction occurs consistently across all articles.

 Stage 5. Synthesis of results

Following data extraction and consensus, the research team and community co-investigators will systematically synthesize the results to map key concepts, engagement methods, populations, and outcomes reported across studies. We will use SPSS software to clean and tabulate both the quantitative data and qualitative narratives extracted from the final study sample. All studies included in the final scoping review results will be included in a table listing information including the study author, year of publication, engagement method and population. Quantitative data, such as study characteristics, sample sizes, year of publication, populations engaged, and countries of origin of all studies will be aggregated and frequencies will be summarized using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data, including verbatim descriptions of engagement processes utilized, barriers addressed, and impacts on research partnerships, will be analyzed thematically and presented in a narrative and visual depiction. The synthesis will aim to identify patterns, common approaches or activities, and gaps in mental health services research engagement, highlighting both methodological trends and lessons learned from lived-experience perspectives. Findings will be presented in tables, charts, and narrative summaries to provide a clear overview of the current state of engagement practices and inform future research and participatory initiatives.

 Stage 6. Integration of expert consensus

Before finalizing the extraction framework, we will consult with co-investigators with lived expertise who will provide feedback on the inclusion criteria and thematic categories, ensuring methodological rigor through ongoing expert input. To further strengthen the review, we will convene a Delphi panel composed of additional experts and stakeholders in mental health research and participatory engagement. This panel will review preliminary findings, provide iterative feedback on the relevance, clarity, and completeness of the list of engagement approaches, and help achieve consensus on key elements of engagement practices. Incorporating this iterative structured, collective consultation ensures that the synthesis reflects both methodological rigor and practical expertise from the field.

 Dissemination

The findings will be presented as set of engagement activities for expert panels in a Delphi panel meeting format with experts across sectors. The findings also will be presented in advisory council meetings and at professional meetings and written as results for a peer-reviewed manuscript.

 Study status

The scoping review is currently in progress. Database searches have been completed, and full-text articles are being screened and finalized for inclusion. Data extraction and synthesis are underway, with ongoing input from community co-investigators, advisory council members, and a modified Delphi Panel to ensure methodological rigor and integration of lived-experience perspectives.

 Discussion

This participatory scoping review will synthesize the current evidence on engagement approaches and strategies used to involve populations underrepresented in mental health services research. By systematically mapping methods across patient-centered and comparative effectiveness studies, the review will provide a thorough description of practices to improve engagement practices and advance the emerging science of engagement. The involvement of community co-investigators with lived experience, advisory council members, and a modified Delphi Panel of experts will ensure that the findings reflect both methodological rigor and practical relevance, bridging academic and community perspectives.

Given the limited availability of comprehensive guidance on integrating lived experience in research partnerships, the findings from this review are expected to support researchers in designing and reporting engagement strategies in a systematic and transparent manner. For example, the results can inform reporting practices aligned with the PRISMA-ScR checklist, enhancing the clarity and replicability of scoping reviews that incorporate participatory methods. Overall, this review will not only document current practices but also identify gaps, highlight existing practices, and offer recommendations for future research engagement, fostering more inclusive and effective engagement in mental health services research.

 Ethical considerations

Ethics and consent were not required.

 Data availability Underlying Data

No data associated with this article.

 Extended Data

Open Science Framework. [A Scoping Review of Engagement Methods with Communities Underrepresented in Research Partnerships.] DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6E2CX. 21

This project contains the following data gathering tools:

PubMed Search Criteria

Screening Eligibility Checklist

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

 Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Advisory Councils engaged in this project, including the Lifeline for Moms Individuals with Lived Expertise Advisory Council, the Postpartum Support International Best Practice Committee for Perinatal Mental Health Equity, the Implementation Science and Practice Advances Research Center (iSPARC) Youth Advisory Board, and the iSPARC Family Advisory Board. Additionally, we would like to acknowledge:

Michele Datko, MS. NAL Evidence Synthesis Librarian, Aretum LLC. Provided critical feedback and technical revisions to search strategy by conducting a formal PRESS.

Brandon Castle, MLIS. Native American and Indigenous Studies Librarian, University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries. Consulted on the development of a portion of the search strategy related to Native American and Indigenous peoples to ensure the full range of identities would be captured.

References Huang J Lipman PD Daniel MC : Bridging the divide: building infrastructure to support community-academic partnerships and improve capacity to conduct patient-centered outcomes research. Transl. Behav. Med. 2017;7(4):773–782. 28374212 10.1007/s13142-017-0487-z PMC5684073 Horowitz CR Robinson M Seifer S : Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream: are researchers prepared?. Circulation. 2009;119(19):2633–2642. 19451365 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.729863 PMC2796448 Morgan A Ziglio E : Revitalising the evidence base for public health: an assets model. Promot. Educ. 2007;14:17–22. 10.1177/10253823070140020701x Alegría M Alvarez K Ishikawa RZ : Removing obstacles to eliminating racial and ethnic disparities in behavioral health care. Health Aff. 2016;35(6):991–999. 27269014 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0029 PMC5027758 Maxwell JA : The value of qualitative inquiry for public policy. Qual. Inq. 2020;26(2):177–186. 10.1177/1077800419857093 Arnstein L Wadsworth AC Yamamoto BA : Patient involvement in preparing health research peer-reviewed publications or results summaries: a systematic review and evidence-based recommendations. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2020;6(1):34. 32587753 10.1186/s40900-020-00190-w PMC7313171 Crocker JC Ricci-Cabello I Parker A : Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018;k4738. 10.1136/bmj.k4738 Wallerstein NB Duran B : Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promot. Pract. 2006;7(3):312–323. 10.1177/1524839906289376 Landsittel DP Kessler L Schmid CH : Training in patient-centered outcomes research for specific researcher communities. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science. 2017;1(5):278–284. 29707248 10.1017/cts.2017.307 PMC5915813 Dawson S Campbell SM Giles SJ : Black and minority ethnic group involvement in health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):3–22. 28812330 10.1111/hex.12597 PMC5750731 Baquet CR Bromwell JL Hall MB : Rural community–academic partnership model for community engagement and partnered research. Prog. Community Health Partnersh. 2013;7(3):281–290. 24056510 10.1353/cpr.2013.0028 PMC4794331 Jones JH Reverby SM : 50 years after the Tuskegee revelations: why does the mistrust linger?. Am. J. Public Health. 2022;112(11):1538–1540. 36223581 10.2105/AJPH.2022.307088 PMC9558200 Mitton C Smith N Peacock S : Public participation in health care priority setting: a scoping review. Health Policy. 2009;91(3):219–228. 19261347 10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.01.005 Manafo E Petermann L Mason-Lai P : Patient engagement in Canada: a scoping review of the ‘how’and ‘what’of patient engagement in health research. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):5. Riches L Ridgway L Edwards L : Co-learning commentary: a patient partner perspective in mental health care research. Research Involvement and Engagement. 2023;9(1):24. 37072880 10.1186/s40900-023-00435-4 PMC10114418 Cluley V Ziemann A Feeley C : Mapping the role of patient and public involvement during the different stages of healthcare innovation: a scoping review. Health Expect. 2022;25(3):840–855. 35174585 10.1111/hex.13437 PMC9122470 Westphaln KK Regoeczi W Masotya M : From Arksey and O’Malley and Beyond: Customizations to enhance a team-based, mixed approach to scoping review methodology. MethodsX. 2021;8:101375. 34430271 10.1016/j.mex.2021.101375 PMC8374523 Levac D Colquhoun H O'brien KK : Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement. Sci. 2010;5(1):69. Arksey H O'malley L : Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005;8(1):19–32. Schaefer AJ Tabb K Logan D : Charting the Course to Meaningful Community-Academic Research Partnerships: A roadmap and tools to advance heath equity through community partnership on Patient Centered Outcomes Research/Comparative Effectiveness Research (PCOR/CER) Studies. 2023. 2023-11-09. 10.13028/2wks-qm37 Tabb K Ramirez XR Schaefer A : Science of Engagement: A Scoping Review of Engagement Methods with Communities Underrepresented in Research Partnerships. 2026, February 5. 10.17605/OSF.IO/6E2CX