ABSTRACTIntroductionLong Covid and other infection‐associated chronic condition communities have been integral in advocating for patient engagement in all stages of research, from design and conduct, and implementation, through to interpretation and knowledge translation; nevertheless, the process varies across research teams. In this paper, we (1) describe our process undertaking a community‐engaged Long Covid research study; (2) evaluate our community‐engaged approach, highlighting strengths and limitations with our process; and (3) identify recommendations for engaging in community‐engaged patient‐oriented research in Long Covid.MethodsGuided by the 4PI (Principles; Purpose; Presence; Process; Impact) Framework and Patient‐Led Research Scorecards, we describe our community‐engaged approach within the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study, followed by an evaluation of our community engagement using a multistage consultation with members of the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study team. We conducted an online group‐based discussion among persons with lived experiences and administered a web‐based Scorecard questionnaire rating the collaboration as it relates to four domains of patient burden, governance, integration into the research process, and organisation readiness to all members of the team, to assess strengths and limitations of our approach. Scores ranged from −2 (non‐collaboration) to +2 (ideal collaboration).ResultsTen team members, five of whom were persons with lived experiences, completed the Scorecard questionnaire. Median Scorecard scores ranged from +1 to +2 for all domains. Five team members with lived experiences, representing four community support groups and organisations that participated in the community‐engagement discussion. We describe the practices and principles that enabled meaningful community engagement, with the strengths and limitations of our approach embedded throughout.ConclusionOur community‐engaged approach to the Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study enhanced the quality and relevance of the study to the community while highlighting areas to heighten meaningful engagement throughout. This study builds on foundational community‐based research principles of patient‐oriented research. Recommendations derived from our experiences may be used by other research teams conducting community‐engaged patient‐oriented research.Patient or Public ContributionThe Long COVID and Episodic Disability Study is a community‐engaged research study involving 25 members, including 12 persons living with long Covid, 13 researchers and 5 clinicians (categories are not mutually exclusive), referred to as the Full Team. Persons with lived experiences possessed a range of professional and personal experiences spanning research, clinical, policy and private sector/business contexts; team members wore multiple hats and perspectives which collectively strengthened the diversity of expertise, perspectives and insights to the team and process. Engagement of people with lived experiences with Long Covid ensured that the study was fully co‐created with people living with Long Covid. During the development of the study proposal, community partners from organisations in Canada, Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States, who were linked to larger networks of people living with Long Covid, were purposefully invited to join the study team. Several Long Covid community networks and organisations, represented by persons living with Long Covid, were involved in all stages of the research, including: COVID Long‐Haulers Support Group Canada (S.G.); Long COVID Advocacy Ireland (I.O., S.O. and R.S.); Long COVID Ireland (N.R. and R.S.); Long COVID Physio (D.A.B. and C.T.); Long Covid Support UK (M.O.H.); and Patient‐Led Research Collaborative (L.M., N.M. and H.W.). These representatives along with the Co‐PIs (K.K.O. and D.A.B.) and co‐ordinator (K.M.) comprised the Core Long COVID and Episodic Disability Community Collaborator Team (Core Team). Team members with lived experiences were provided yearly remuneration for their time and expertise dedicated to the study, either as an individual, or to the community organisation which they represented on the study according to their preference.