Different in so many ways: Exploring consumer, health service staff, and academic partnerships in a research advisory group through rapid ethnography.

Everyone in the group already had substantial consumer involvement experience, so this tells you little about engaging people new to research or from communities that have been left out. All members had at least a bachelor's degree and could access videoconferencing, which narrows whose experience is represented. No consumers were paid, which the authors note may itself create a power imbalance and limit who can take part. The research team was deeply committed to consumer partnership before the study began, so their own views may have shaped what was recorded and reported. Benefits to the wider study and to future practice were anticipated by participants rather than measured. Results come from one advisory group in one Australian health service, so they are context-specific and may not transfer to your setting.

The authors declared no known conflicts of interest and no financial support for the study. Two grant applications that included a budget to pay consumers were unsuccessful, so no consumer was remunerated.

Do not read the positive themes as evidence that this advisory group model improves research quality. The study reports what twelve experienced partners said they enjoyed and valued, with no comparison group and no measured outcomes, so it describes an experience rather than proving a method works.