JMIR Publications

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