Abstract:Background and Context Involving people with lived experience of health conditions and the public (consumers) in health research is supported by policy, practice and research funding schemes. However, consumer involvement programmes in discovery‐based preclinical research settings are uncommon. Few formal evaluations of these programmes are reported in the literature. Objective This study aimed to evaluate an established patient and public involvement programme operating in a major Australian Discovery‐Based Medical Research Institute (DBMRI) to inform programme development and the wider field. Design and Participants A multimethods programme evaluation incorporating demographic, descriptive and qualitative data obtained through consumer/researcher co‐developed online surveys and semistructured virtual interviews. Programme participants (n = 111) were invited to complete an online survey seeking feedback on their experience of involvement, programme processes and perceived impacts. A purposive sample of 25 participants was interviewed. Descriptive data were analysed using explanatory statistics and qualitative data from surveys and interviews were thematically analysed. Results This consumer involvement programme was found to be useful and meaningful for most participants, with specific examples of perceived added value. Consumers most commonly engaged with researchers to inform research development, prepare funding applications or strengthen lay communication of science. Genuine consumer–researcher interactions, relationship development and mutual respect were key elements in a positive experience for participants. Opportunities to 'give back', to learn and to ground research in lived experience were identified programme strengths and benefits. Developing researcher training in how to work with consumers, increasing the diversity of the consumer group membership and expanding the range of consumer activities were identified opportunities for improvement. Organisational support and adequate programme resourcing were identified as key enablers. Conclusion Discovery‐based preclinical research is often viewed as being distant from clinical application; therefore, consumer involvement may be considered less relevant. However this study identified value in bringing a strong consumer voice to the discovery‐based research process through a coordinated, organisation‐wide approach with the potential for application in similar preclinical research settings. Patient or Public Contribution Four consumer partners from the DBMRI Consumer Advisory Panel were actively engaged in developing this programme evaluation. Specifically, these consumer partners co‐developed and pilot‐tested surveys and interview guides, reviewed and commented on project data analysis and reporting and also contributed as co‐authors by editing the manuscript.

Public involvement in Australian clinical trials: A systematic review

Effective interventions to increase representation of under-served groups in randomised trials in UK and Ireland: a scoping literature review

[Patients' Predisposition to Participate in Clinical Trials at Hospital: A Cross-Sectional Study]

Availability of study protocols for randomized trials published in high-impact medical journals: A cross-sectional analysis

The attitudes of 1066 patients with cancer towards participation in randomised clinical trials

Clinicians' attitudes towards clinical trials of cancer therapy

Patient and public involvement in preclinical and medical research: Evaluation of an established programme in a Discovery‐Based Medical Research Institute

Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme

Promoting public awareness of randomised clinical trials using the media: the 'Get Randomised' campaign

Randomised clinical trial research within Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander primary health services: a qualitative study

Patient and public involvement in emergency care research: a scoping review of the literature

Uptake of health economic evaluations alongside clinical trials in Australia: an observational study

Barriers and best practices to improving clinical trials transparency at UK public research institutions: A qualitative interview study

Towards equitable reporting of Indigenous status, ethnicity, language and country of birth in Australian paediatric clinical studies: A scoping review

Improving clinical trial transparency at UK universities: Evaluating 3 years of policies and reporting performance on the European Clinical Trial Register

Commentary: an industry perspective on the importance of incorporating participant voice before, during, and after clinical trials

Patient information leaflets (PILs) for UK randomised controlled trials: a feasibility study exploring whether they contain information to support decision making about trial participation

"We are not invited": Australian focus group results on how to improve ethnic diversity in trials

Elements of successful patient involvement in clinical cancer trials: a review of the literature

International Collaboration and Commercial Involvement in Randomized Controlled Trials From 10 Leading Countries, 1997 Through 2019

Reporting and interpretation of results from clinical trials that did not claim a treatment difference: survey of four general medical journals