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.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Authorities responded with contact restrictions and other measures to the global spread of SARS-CoV-2. Health literacy (HL) has been linked to health outcomes and refers to the ability to access, understand, appraise and apply health information in order to make good health decisions. When restrictions are gradually lifted, individual HL becomes essential to control the pandemic and to prevent the resumption of these restriction, should infection numbers surge again. The aim of this rapid scoping review, for which only studies from the general population were considered, was to describe the extent of existing research on HL in the context of previous coronavirus outbreaks (SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2). Facets of HL that were of particular interest were: type of assessment of HL (theory-based versus proxy assessment; validated instrument versus ad hoc assessment), domains of HL, interventions aiming to improve HL during outbreak situations, and HL surveillance during outbreak. METHODS: We searched two major databases and included publications of quantitative and qualitative studies in English and German on any type of research on the functional, critical and communicative domains of HL conducted in the context of the three outbreaks in the general population. We extracted and tabulated relevant data and narratively reported where and when the study was conducted, the design and method used, and how HL was measured. FINDINGS: 72 studies were included. Three investigated HL or explicitly referred to the concept of HL, 14 were guided by health behaviour theory. We did not find any study designed to develop or psychometrically evaluate pandemic HL instruments, or relate pandemic or general HL to a pandemic outcome, or any controlled intervention study. Type of assessment of the domains of HL varied widely. INTERPRETATION: Theory-driven observational studies as well as interventions, examining whether pandemic-related HL can be improved are needed. In addition, the development and validation of instruments that measure pandemic-related HL is desirable.

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

Background In early childhood allergy prevention (ECAP), parents act on behalf of their children. Parental health literacy and the availability of high-quality information, both online and offline, are crucial for effective ECAP. Recent research highlights three main points. First, parents need sufficient health literacy to discriminate between high-quality and low-quality information. Second, ECAP information behaviors may vary between phases of childhood development and according to individual circumstances. Third, to strengthen user-centeredness of available services, a better overview of parents’ information practices and needs and how they handle uncertainties is required. Objective This study aims to explore why, how, and when parents search for and apply ECAP-specific health information and which individual (eg, understanding of advice) and organizational challenges (eg, information services, information complexity, and changing recommendations) they perceive and how they handle them. This study also aims to assess the needs and preferences that parents express for future information formats and contents. The findings should inform the practical design of ECAP information as well as formats and channels specific to different parent groups. Methods The above-named issues will be explored with parents in four German cities as one element in our efforts to cover the spectrum of perspectives. Based on a mixed methods design, including qualitative and quantitative assessments, the first year serves to prepare focus groups, a piloted focus group guide, a short standardized survey adapted from the European Health Literacy Project, recruitment channels, and the recruitment of participants. After conducting 20 focus groups in the second year, data will be analyzed via a constant comparison method in the third year. Based on this, practice implications on channels (ie, Where?), formats (ie, How?), and contents (ie, What?) of ECAP-specific information will be derived and discussed with parents and associated project partners before its dissemination to relevant ECAP actors (eg, childcare institutions and pediatricians). Results The study began with preselection of recruitment channels, drafting of recruitment and study information for potential participants, and agreement on a first full version of the guideline. Then, a detailed contact list was compiled of health professionals, administrative and social institutions, and relevant social media channels (N=386) to be approached for assistance in contacting parents. The recruitment was postponed due to COVID-19 and will start in January 2021. Conclusions ECAP is a relevant example for assessing how users (ie, parents) handle not only health information but the various and continuous changes, uncertainties, and controversies attached to it. So far, it is unclear how parents implement the respective scientific recommendations and expert advice, which is why this study aims to inform those who communicate with parents about ECAP information. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/25474