Patient engagement and integrated knowledge translation (iKT) processes improve health outcomes and care experiences through meaningful partnerships in consensus-building initiatives and research. Consensus-building is essential for engaging a diverse group of experienced knowledge users in co-developing and supporting a solution where none readily exists or is less optimal. Patients and caregivers provide invaluable insights for building consensus in decision-making around healthcare, policy and research. However, despite emerging evidence, patient engagement remains sparse within consensus-building initiatives. Specifically, our research has identified a lack of opportunity for youth living with chronic health conditions and their caregivers to participate in developing consensus on indicators/benchmarks for transition into adult care. To bridge this gap and inform our consensus-building approach with youth/caregivers, this scoping review will synthesise the extent of the literature on patient and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives.

Following the scoping review methodology from Joanna Briggs Institute, published literature will be searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases from inception to July 2023. Grey literature will be hand-searched. Two independent reviewers will determine the eligibility of articles in a two-stage process, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Included studies must be consensus-building studies within the healthcare context that involve patient engagement strategies. Data from eligible studies will be extracted and charted on a standardised form. Abstracted data will be analysed quantitatively and descriptively, according to specific consensus methodologies, and patient engagement models and/or strategies.

Ethics approval is not required for this scoping review protocol. The review process and findings will be shared with and informed by relevant knowledge users. Dissemination of findings will also include peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. The results will offer new insights for supporting patient engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives.

https://osf.io/beqjr

Children with cerebral palsy (CP) are prescribed home exercise programmes (HEPs) to increase the frequency of movement practice, yet adherence to HEPs can be low. This paper outlines the protocol for a single-case experimental design (SCED) with alternating treatments, using a new home therapy exercise application, Bootle Boot Camp (BBCamp), offered with and without movement tracking feedback. This study will explore the impact of feedback on engagement, movement quality, lower limb function and family experiences to help understand how technology-supported HEPs should be translated and the added value, if any, of movement tracking technology.

In this explanatory sequential mixed-methods study using a SCED, 16 children with CP (aged 6–12 years, Gross Motor Function Classification System levels I–II) will set lower limb goals and be prescribed an individualised HEP by their physiotherapist to complete using BBCamp on their home television equipped with a three-dimensional camera-computer system. Children will complete four weekly exercise sessions over 6 weeks. Children will be randomised to 1 of 16 alternating treatment schedules where BBCamp will provide or withhold feedback during the first 4 weeks. The version of BBCamp that results in the most therapeutic benefit will be continued for 2 final weeks. Goals will be re-evaluated and families interviewed. The primary outcome is adherence (proportion of prescribed exercise repetitions attempted) as a measure of behavioural engagement. Secondary outcomes are affective and cognitive engagement (smiley face ratings), exercise fidelity, lower limb function, goal achievement and participant experiences. SCED data will be analysed using visual and statistical methods. Quantitative and qualitative data will be integrated using joint displays.

Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Boards at Bloorview Research Institute and the University of Toronto. Results will be distributed through peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences.

NCT05998239; pre-results.