Table 1.

Summary of the 18 studies included in the literature review on recommendations for patient involvement in research.

Author, Year	Country^*	Source^**	Method^***	Relevance^#	Field^{^}	Generalizability^∼
Ahmed⁹, 2010	USA	Literature	Framework	Direct	Generic	++
Blair¹⁰, 2009	USA	Literature	Literature review	Direct	Geriatric	−
Boote¹, 2006	UK	Literature	Delphi	Direct	Generic	++
De Wit⁷, 2011	EU	Literature	Delphi	Direct	Rheum	+
Kent¹¹, 2013	UK	Gray	Checklist	Direct	Generic	+
Lindenmeyer¹², 2007	UK	Literature	Descriptive	Direct	Diabetes	+
Marsden¹³, 2004	UK	Literature	Descriptive	Direct	Cancer	−
PCORI⁵, 2013	USA	Gray	Framework	Direct	Generic	++
Staniszewska¹⁵, 2011	UK	Literature	Checklist	Direct	Generic	++
Abma¹⁶, 2009	NED	Literature	Descriptive	Indirect	Renal and disability	−
Caldon¹⁷, 2010	UK	Literature	Descriptive	Indirect	Cancer	+
Guise¹⁸, 2013	USA	Literature	Descriptive	Indirect	Generic	++
Hewlett¹⁹, 2006	EU	Literature	Descriptive	Indirect	Rheum	+
Katz²⁰, 2012	USA	Literature	Survey	Indirect	Cancer	−
Nierse²¹, 2012	NED	Literature	Descriptive	Indirect	Renal	−
Rhodes²², 2002	UK	Literature	Descriptive	Indirect	Diabetes	−
Stevens²³, 2003	UK	Literature	Descriptive	Indirect	Oncology	+
Wright²⁴, 2010	UK	Literature	Framework	Indirect	Oncology	+

↵* Origin of the article.
↵** Where the source was from.
↵*** How the recommendations or guidelines were derived.
↵# Whether the data were directly relevant for recommendations of patient involvement in research or indirectly, i.e., from descriptions or information that may be helpful with recommendations or guidelines.
↵^ The area that the recommendations or data were related to.
↵∼ The extent to which the information can be applied to areas outside the field that the information was related to (global assessment by the authors). EU: Europe; NED: the Netherlands.