Table 3 Factors that could be barriers to or facilitators of residents’ involvement in research processes – adapted from Backhouse et al. [3]. New items from this review in bold and with ^*, items evident in both reviews in bold and with ^**

Social factors

Skills

Resources

Care-home organisational factors

Organisation of the research

Barriers

-Resident low confidence^**

-Apprehension to engage into something different

-Power relations (in relation to staff and relatives)

-Researcher and research seen as threatening (to staff)

-Frustration about complexity and slow progress

-Lack of trust in confidentiality

-Low or changing mood of some residents

-Role conflict of researching in own home

-Sensory and communication difficulties

-Changing resident health^**

-Cognitive impairment^** resulting in limited participation/negotiation skills

-Meetings monopolised by one member

-Lengthy and complex reports frustrating residents

-Residents’ low energy/tiredness^*

-Loss of resident concentration^*

-Lack of experience leading co-creation (students)^*

-Gaps in knowledge^*

-Lack of funding for more continuous input

-Limited researcher time (e.g. not available at the weekend, no time for providing feedback)

-Lack of space to hold meetings

-Unsupportive organisational culture

-Care organisation over-ruling expected outcomes^*

-Individuals and groups feeling isolated from each other

-Perception that residents'involvement might slow down decision-making process

-Dominant person might influence residents

-COVID 19 exacerbated stigmas and need for culture change^*

-Limited researcher flexibility

-Ethical protocols excluded and limited participation

-Researchers reluctance to relinquish control

-Timing of meetings e.g., evening

-Venue of meeting e.g., not at care home or lack of privacy

-Miscommunication^*

-No evaluation of implementation, so no identification of barriers^*

Facilitators

-Development of trust and good relationships

-Residents’ experiences valued

-Residents supported to contribute

-People open to change

-Good commitment from public involvement members

-Transparency of processes

-Residents having some control e.g. ownership of decisions

-Assurance that the study will result in progress

-Assured confidentiality

-Assured withdrawal at any time without reason

-Constant encouragement and support of residents from researchers

-Researchers embracing deviant perspectives

-Researchers using successful examples to illustrate involvement

-Researchers willing to share control

-Researchers always contactable

-Negotiated ground rules

-Ability to communicate with diverse groups of people^**

-Use of creative methods to engage residents

-Researchers being flexible

-Separate workshops for staff or family members^*

-Funding for honorarium for participants

-Time to do the groundwork required, e.g. proving information

-Time to arrange meetings and support residents

-Suitable venues and space to hold meetings

-Providing sustenance

-Financial resources to implement changes identified by the research

-Independent university researchers facilitated Public Involvement^*

-External team lead the initiative—capacity for candidness^*

-Supportive organisational culture

-Care-home management on board

-Care-home management willing to change

-Care-home staff value residents being involved in study

-Research group known to care organisation^*

-Expert assesses whether individual organisation is'ready'to use the tool intended for implementation^*

-Emergent study design

-Use topics that really matter to the residents

-Flexibility in residents’ involvement, e.g., informal conversations

-Allow personal ad hoc contact with research team

-Summarise meeting notes into accessible formats, e.g. posters

-Send materials out before meetings

-Recruit researchers who can support older people

-Recognise multiple stakeholder groups/support marginalised groups

-Diverse range of stakeholders/backgrounds^*

-Outline key implementation changes in an accessible way^*