Background Acceptance and Commitment Therapy interventions are increasing in use in neurological populations. There is a lack of information on the measures available. Purpose To identify and classify the measures used in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy research studies with adults with acquired neurological conditions. Methods PRISMA-ScR guided scoping review. MEDLINE, PsycInfo and CINAHL databases searched (up to date 29/06/2022) with forward and backward searching. All study types included. Extraction of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy process-of-change and health-related outcome measures. Outcomes coded using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy. Results Three hundred and thirty three papers found on searching. Fifty four studies included and 136 measurement tools extracted. Conditions included multiple sclerosis, traumatic brain injury and stroke. Thirty-eight studies measured processes of change, with 32 measures extracted. The process measure most often used was the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (n = 21 studies). One hundred and four health-related outcome measures extracted. Measures exploring quality of life, health status, anxiety and depression occurred most frequently, and were used in all included neurological conditions. COMET domains most frequently coded were emotional functioning/well-being (n = 50), physical functioning (n = 32), role functioning (n = 22) and psychiatric (n = 22). Conclusions This study provides a resource to support future identification of candidate measures. This could aid development of a Core Outcome Set to support both research and clinical practice. Further research to identify the most appropriate and relevant targets and tools for use in these populations should include expert consensus, patient, carer and public involvement and psychometric examination of measures.

Patient, Carer and Public Involvement (PCPI) should be embedded in health care research. Delivering PCPI can be challenging, but even when PCPI is carried out it is rarely reported resulting in lost opportunities for learning. This paper aims to describe PCPI in the OSCARSS study, a pragmatic-cluster randomised controlled trial with an embedded economic and process evaluation. A carer research user group (RUG) co-developed OSCARSS to evaluate how to best deliver support to caregivers of stroke survivors. The PCPI activity involved regular meetings and preparatory work, from the initial conceptualisation of the study through to dissemination. Written reports, structured group discussions and individual interviews were carried out with the RUG and researchers to capture the added value and learning. This paper was co-authored by two of the RUG members with contributions from the wider RUG and researchers. The core six members of the caregiver RUG attended the majority of the meetings alongside three researchers, one of whom was the co-chief investigator. PCPI was instrumental in changing many aspects of the research protocol, design and delivery and contributed to dissemination and sharing of good practice. There were challenges due to the emotional toll when PCPI members shared their stories and the extensive time commitment. Positive experiences of learning and fulfilment were reported by the individual researchers and PCPI members. Wider organisational administrative and financial support facilitated the PCPI. The researchers’ existing positive regard for PCPI and the clear focus of the group were key to the successful co-design of this research. The value and learning from the PCPI collaborative work with the researchers was of benefit to the study and the individuals involved. Specific PCPI influences were a challenge to pinpoint as successful co-design meant the researchers’ and carers’ contributions were intertwined and decision-making shared.