Collaborative evaluation of a pilot involvement opportunity: Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Voice of Experience College

BACKGROUND: Involving consumers in systematic reviews can make them more valuable and help achieve goals around transparency. Systematic reviews are technically complex and training can be needed to enable consumers to engage with them fully. The Cochrane Common Mental Disorders group sought to engage people with lived experience of mental health problems in the Voice of Experience College, three workshops introducing them to systematic review methods and to opportunities to contribute as Cochrane consumers. We aimed to collectively evaluate the College from the perspective of both facilitators and consumers, to critically reflect on the experience, and to identify how the College could be sustained and spread to other review groups. METHODS: This study was a longitudinal qualitative and collaborative evaluation, structured around normalisation process theory. Both facilitators and consumers were involved in not only providing their perspectives but also reflecting on these together to identify key learning points. RESULTS: The workshops were positively evaluated as being engaging and supportive, largely due to the relational skills of the facilitators, and their willingness to engage in joint or two‐way learning. The College suffered from a lack of clarity over the role of consumers after the College itself, with a need for greater communication to check assumptions and clarify expectations. This was not achieved due to pandemic disruptions, which nevertheless demonstrated that resources for involvement were not prioritised as core business during this period. CONCLUSIONS: Soft skills around communication and support are crucial to effective consumer engagement. Sustaining involvement requires sustained communication and opportunities to reflect together on opportunities and challenges. This requires committed resources to ensure involvement activity is prioritised. This is critical as negative experiences later in the involvement journey can undermine originally positive experiences if contributors are unclear as to what their involvement can lead to. Open discussions about this are necessary to avoid conflicting assumptions. The spread of the approach to other review groups could be achieved by flexibly adapting to group‐specific resources and settings, but maintaining a core focus on collaborative relationships as the key mechanism of engagement. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Public contributors were collaborators throughout the evaluation process and have co‐authored the paper.