Currently submitted to: Journal of Participatory Medicine
Date Submitted: Apr 30, 2026
Open Peer Review Period: May 11, 2026 - Jul 6, 2026
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Community Advisory Groups in Rural Health Research: A Scoping Review
ABSTRACT
Background:
There has been an increasing emphasis on community-engaged research in rural settings. Community advisory groups (CAGs) are one common way to include community perspective and voice in health-related research. However, understanding is still limited on how rural CAGs are operated and reported on.
Objective:
This scoping review will explore the current status of rural CAG operation and reporting and describe the attributes of CAGs in rural, health-related research contexts including form, function, methods, impact, and influence.
Methods:
This scoping review follows the methodological framework outlined by Levac et al., with reporting guided by the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. We searched three bibliographic databases in September 2025 to identify relevant peer-reviewed literature: PubMed via the National Library of Medicine interface, Scopus via the Elsevier interface, and CINAHL via the EBSCOhost interface. We utilized a three-stage, fully human screening process to identify articles for inclusion. We extracted structured information from each included article using a standardized data charting matrix in Excel and used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public Long Form reporting checklist as an analytic framework.
Results:
The database searches produced 1,135 papers. There were 21 papers selected for full-text screening, and nine were included in the review. The included articles used a variety of terms to describe CAG work and varied in their member composition and topic areas. The form, function, methods, and impact by which CAGs were engaged and evaluated were well reported in the included articles while cost, benefit, and theoretical rationale or development were mostly absent. No significant patterns related to study design, research topic, member type, or level of engagement emerged from the data. Instead, the CAG composition, activities, and evaluation appeared to be study and context specific.
Conclusions:
The nine studies included in this review provide important insight into rural CAG operations. CAG implementation appeared to be more focused on a pragmatic approach as opposed to theory development. Gaps and variation in reporting identify a need for more consistent and in-depth reporting of CAG implementation to allow for better understanding and comparison of CAG approaches. Clinical Trial: 10.17605/OSF.IO/V23KC
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.