Farrell Milly, Wilkinson Clare
Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Science Communication Unit, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK.
Res Involv Engagem. 2022 Mar 28;8(1):10. doi: 10.1186/s40900-022-00343-z.
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in the majority of public engagement with research work moving online. This shift to online engagement is likely to affect inclusivity and diversity in such events and this requires further consideration as a result of the pandemic. Through comparing case-studies both pre-dating and during the pandemic, we are able to discern areas for ongoing improvement and learning in the public engagement sphere.
The public engagement work of the Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities has sought to include a broad discussion on its research from a range of demographics, attempting to be inclusive in the engagement work of the Centre. However such efforts have not always been successful and we reflect here on two different pre-pandemic 'in-person' case studies assessing public views on vaccination and medical data sharing. In contrast we compare these pre-pandemic activities to a fully online case study coordinated and completed during the pandemic. These three case studies are compared and assessed for evidence of their efficacy in a post-pandemic world.
Research and public awareness benefit when multiple views are included in engagement events. Broader demographics enrich our ways of understanding societal responses to healthcare issues such as vaccination, data sharing and social responsibility. The move to online engagement as a result of the pandemic may open opportunities to widening engagement geographically, but it could also pose a threat to inclusivity with certain public groups on a more local level. Enabling access to online engagement is key, but considerations must be made regarding the new barriers created by a solely online world and the many groups of people inadvertently excluded from this work.
新冠疫情导致大部分公众参与研究工作转移到线上。这种向线上参与的转变可能会影响此类活动的包容性和多样性，鉴于疫情，这需要进一步考虑。通过比较疫情之前和疫情期间的案例研究，我们能够辨别公众参与领域中仍需改进和学习的方面。
威康伦理与人文中心的公众参与工作试图纳入来自不同人口统计学群体对其研究的广泛讨论，力求在该中心的参与工作中做到包容。然而，这些努力并非总是成功的，在此我们反思两个不同的疫情前“面对面”案例研究，它们评估了公众对疫苗接种和医疗数据共享的看法。相比之下，我们将这些疫情前的活动与疫情期间协调并完成的一个全在线案例研究进行比较。对这三个案例研究进行比较和评估，以了解它们在疫情后世界中的成效证据。
当参与活动纳入多种观点时，研究和公众意识会从中受益。更广泛的人口统计学群体丰富了我们理解社会对诸如疫苗接种、数据共享和社会责任等医疗保健问题反应的方式。疫情导致的向线上参与的转变可能会带来在地理上扩大参与范围的机会，但在更地方层面上，这也可能对某些公众群体的包容性构成威胁。实现线上参与的途径至关重要，但必须考虑到完全在线的世界所带来的新障碍以及许多被无意排除在这项工作之外的人群。
