These included first, the need for an introduction at the start of the project which was longer and more substantial than face-to-face formats and less technical research. Second, project teams need to consider how to build a sense of community and team-work of a group when engaging online. The process described here was productive, but had important limitations that present opportunities for further work. The LEAP was useful, but it fell short of co-production, which would involve longer-term, better-funded participation of stakeholders in research planning. Also, the current LEAP was richly diverse with respect to many aspects of identity, but was highly knowledgeable of mental health services. In that sense, it was not representative of many people seeking psychological treatment, who have no knowledge even of basic aspects of mental health care (e.g. the difference between appointments with a psychiatrist vs. a counsellor). Future stakeholder participation should also involve inexperienced people interested in therapy. Relevance and ecological validity were addressed, but not fully resolved. Further development is needed for laboratory studies to examine service factors that affect engagement, such as the knowledge of the amount of time one will have for therapy. These are important for persons seeking help. In addition, LEAP members would have preferred more realistic laboratory tasks, such as including unfolding therapy scenarios. Further work will be required here, as unfolding scenarios are as yet unsuitable for brain-scanning studies, which require a lot of repetition to yield results. This may be addressed in future both through further work involving stakeholders, but also through advances in technology such as wearable devices. Finally, once the pandemic is over, accessible and low-cost on-line meetings should complement (where possible) rather than replace real-life group work.