BackgroundMass media plays an important role in communicating about health research and services to patients, and in shaping public perceptions and decisions about health. Healthcare professionals also play an important role in providing patients with credible, evidence-based and up-to-date information on a wide range of health issues. This study aims to explore primary care nurses’ experiences of how mass media influences frontline healthcare.MethodsIn-depth telephone interviews were carried out with 18 primary care nurses (nine health visitors and nine practice nurses) working in the United Kingdom (UK). Interviews were recorded and transcribed. The data was analysed using thematic analysis, with a focus on constant comparative analysis.ResultsThree themes emerged from the data. First, participants reported that their patients were frequently influenced by controversial health stories reported in the media, which affected their perceptions of, and decisions about, care. This, in turn, impinged upon participants’ workloads as they had to spend additional time discussing information and reassuring patients. Second, participants also recalled times in their own careers when media reports had contributed to a decline in their confidence in current healthcare practices and treatments. Third, the participants in this study suggested a real need for additional resources to support and expand their own media literacy skills, which could be shared with patients.ConclusionIn an ever expanding media landscape with greater reporting on health, nurses working in the primary care setting face increasing pressure to effectively manage media stories that dispute current health policies and practices. These primary care nurses were keen to expand their media literacy skills to develop critical autonomy in relation to all media, and to facilitate more meaningful conversations with their patients about their health concerns and choices.

completed a BSc honours degree in Sports Science at the University of Edinburgh in 2006. She started a PhD at the University of Edinburgh in 2007. Her PhD is orientated towards health and exercise psychology and focuses on understanding and promoting cycle commuting in a workplace setting. Joanne M Williams completed her PhD in developmental psychology in 1993. As a post-doctoral research she published on areas relating to adolescent health and risk behaviour. She was appointed to a lectureship in the Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh in 1996 and her current post as lecturer in psychology in Moray House School of Education in 1998.

BackgroundA challenge facing science is how to renew and improve its relationship with society. One potential solution is to ensure that the public are more involved in the scientific process from the inception of research plans to scientific dissemination strategies. However, to date, little is known about how research funding bodies view public participation in research funding decisions, and how they involve the public into their strategies and practices. This paper provides insights into how key representatives working in the UK non-commercial research funding sector perceive public participation in health-related research funding decisions and the possible implications of these.MethodsWe conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 30 key stakeholders from 10 UK non-commercial research funding bodies that either partially or exclusively fund health-related research. The findings were written up in thematic narrative form.ResultsThe different disciplines that encompass health research, and their differing frames of ‘science and society’, were found to influence how research funding bodies viewed and implemented public participation in research funding decisions. Relevant subsets of the public were more likely to be involved in research funding decisions than lay public, which could be linked to underlying technocratic rationales. Concerns about public participation stemmed from the highly professionalised scientific environment that the public were exposed to. Additionally, from a more positivist frame, concerns arose regarding subjective views and values held by the public that may damage the integrity of science.ConclusionUnderlying assumptions of technocracy largely appear to be driving PP/PE within the research grant review process, even in funding bodies that have overtly democratic ideals. Some conceptions of technocracy were more inclusive than others, welcoming different types of expertise such as patient or research-user experiences and knowledge, while others suggested taking a narrower and more positivist view of expertise as techno-scientific expertise. For research to have its maximum impact when translated into healthcare, health policies and health technologies, there needs to be sensitivity towards multiple frames of knowledge, expertise and underlying values that exist across science and society.