BackgroundA recent report from the British Nuffield Council on Bioethics associated ‘emerging biotechnologies’ with a threefold challenge: 1) uncertainty about outcomes, 2) diverse public views on the values and implications attached to biotechnologies and 3) the possibility of creating radical changes regarding societal relations and practices. To address these challenges, leading international institutions stress the need for public involvement activities (PIAs). The objective of this study was to assess the state of PIA reports in the field of biomedical research.MethodsPIA reports were identified via a systematic literature search. Thematic text analysis was employed for data extraction.ResultsAfter filtering, 35 public consultation and 11 public participation studies were included in this review. Analysis and synthesis of all 46 PIA studies resulted in 6 distinguishable PIA objectives and 37 corresponding PIA methods. Reports of outcome translation and PIA evaluation were found in 9 and 10 studies respectively (20% and 22%). The paper presents qualitative details.DiscussionThe state of PIAs on biomedical research and innovation is characterized by a broad range of methods and awkward variation in the wording of objectives. Better comparability of PIAs might improve the translation of PIA findings into further policy development. PIA-specific reporting guidelines would help in this regard. The modest level of translation efforts is another pointer to the “deliberation to policy gap”. The results of this review could inform the design of new PIAs and future efforts to improve PIA comparability and outcome translation.

Highlights Health literacy (HL) is essential to control the pandemic. Should infection numbers surge again HL can help prevent the resumption of restrictions. We describe the extent of existing research on HL in the context of previous coronavirus outbreaks. Type of assessment of the domains of HL varied widely. Studies that examine interventions to improve pandemic related HL are needed.

Research on patient and public involvement so far concentrates on defining involvement, describing its methods, and analyzing involvement practices in various individual research disciplines. There is little empirical data on the process of and aims for selecting (lay) PPI participants, and to what extend they can and should be representative of the population at large. To explore practices and perceptions on these issues and on future PPI conduct more generally, we sent an electronic survey to authors who published involvement activities as part of their studies in medical and social science journals. We identified such authors with a systematic search of five databases and applied descriptive statistics for analysis. Of those who returned the survey (n = 127 of 315; 40%), most had previously conducted involvement activities (73%). 45% reported more than one type of involvement, e.g. consultation and deliberation and participation (14%) and to have recruited more than one type of participant for their PPI activity (56%), e.g. ‘lay publics’ and ‘expert publics’ (33% of 71). Representativeness was often seen as a crucial objective when selecting PPI participants, while less than half found it very easy (9%) or rather easy (34%) to select participants. Many respondents considered achieving good representativeness difficult (52%) or very difficult (17%). They identified significant respective challenges and desired more guidance on various aspects of planning and conducting PPI (56%). 55% thought that the concept of “involvement” should be changed or improved. We conclude that recruiting lay people for PPI activities and deciding about and handling representativeness are controversial in current PPI practice, given the manifold challenges mentioned by the survey respondents. Our findings may inform further research particularly regarding–the potentially many cases of–unpublished PPI.

Background: Public involvement activities (PIAs) may contribute to the governance of ethically challenging biomedical research and innovation by informing, consulting with and engaging the public in developments and decision-making processes. For PIAs to capture a population's preferences (e.g. on issues in whole genome sequencing, biobanks or genome editing), a central methodological requirement is to involve a sufficiently representative subgroup of the general public. While the existing literature focusses on theoretical and normative aspects of ‘representation', this study assesses empirically how such considerations are implemented in practice. It evaluates how PIA reports describe representation objectives, the recruitment process and levels of representation achieved. Methods: PIA reports were included from a systematic literature search if they directly reported a PIA conducted in a relevant discipline such as genomics, biobanks, biotechnology or others. PIA reports were analyzed with thematic text analysis. The text analysis was guided by an assessment matrix based on PIA-specific guidelines and frameworks. Results: We included 46 relevant reports, most focusing on issues in genomics. 27 reports (59%) explicitly described representation objectives, though mostly without adjusting eligibility criteria and recruiting methods to the specific objective. 11 reports (24%) explicitly reported to have achieved the intended representation; the rest either reported failure or were silent on this issue. Conclusion: Representation of study samples in PIAs in biomedical research and innovation is currently not reported systematically. Improved reporting on representation would not only improve the validity and value of PIAs, but could also contribute to PIA results being used more often in relevant policy and decision-making processes.

Chronic diseases account for a considerable part of the strain on health care systems [...]