Table 1 Description of various types of support that the research team developed, with feedback from the public partners, to facilitate meaningful involvement in Priority III

Group of public partners

There were five public partners on the PSP. The public partners felt that having more than one or two public partners was particularly needed given the methodology context

Payment policy

The research team with public partners developed a clear and transparent payment process that highlighted tasks the public partners would contribute to and how much they would be paid (Additional file 5)

Pre-meetings

Separate group meetings were held with the five public partners, the research team, and a representative of the JLA. The Principal Investigator of Priority III chaired these “pre-meetings”. These meetings were one hour with a break between the pre-meeting and Steering Group meeting. Initially, these meetings provided information around the topic and allowed space for questions and discussion. The agendas for these meetings mirrored the main steering group agendas in addition to any topic the partners wished to discuss

Individual email support

The research team offered a point of contact to the public partners and invited ad-hoc one-on-one support and group conversations in email threads to facilitate shared learning

PPI Item on Steering Group agenda

Initially, the group decided together not to have a PPI item on the agenda, lest it feel like a tick-box exercise. The public partners later requested to return the item to the agenda to facilitate transparency at the Steering Group of their activities and to provide an opportunity for questions. Each public partner presented these updates in a rotating manner

Pairing methodologists and public partners to review questions

A methodologist and public partner volunteered to review and refine the interim survey questions and then sent their collated feedback to the research team. All five public partners volunteered and participated in this exercise