Cargando…

The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: A scoping review

BACKGROUND: Biobanks increasingly employ public involvement and engagement strategies, though few studies have explored their impact. This review aims to (a) investigate how the impact of public involvement in biobanks is reported and conceptualized by study authors; in order to (b) suggest how the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Luna Puerta, Lidia, Kendall, Will, Davies, Bethan, Day, Sophie, Ward, Helen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7495079/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32378306
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13067
_version_ 1783582862475264000
author Luna Puerta, Lidia
Kendall, Will
Davies, Bethan
Day, Sophie
Ward, Helen
author_facet Luna Puerta, Lidia
Kendall, Will
Davies, Bethan
Day, Sophie
Ward, Helen
author_sort Luna Puerta, Lidia
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Biobanks increasingly employ public involvement and engagement strategies, though few studies have explored their impact. This review aims to (a) investigate how the impact of public involvement in biobanks is reported and conceptualized by study authors; in order to (b) suggest how the research community might re‐conceptualize the impact of public involvement in biobanks. METHODS: A systematic literature search of three electronic databases and the INVOLVE Evidence Library in January 2019. Studies commenting on the impact of public involvement in a biobank were included, and a narrative review was conducted. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Forty‐one studies covering thirty‐one biobanks were included, with varying degrees of public involvement. Impact was categorized according to where it was seen: ‘the biobank’, ‘people involved’ and ‘the wider research community’. Most studies reported involvement in a ‘functional’ way, in relation to improved rates of participation in the biobank. Broader forms of impact were reported but were vaguely defined and measured. This review highlights a lack of clarity of purpose and varied researcher conceptualizations of involvement. We pose three areas for further research and consideration by biobank researchers and public involvement practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Functional approaches to public involvement in biobanking limit impact. This conceptualization of involvement emerges from an entrenched technical understanding that ignores its political nature, complicated by long‐standing disagreement about the values of public involvement. This study urges a re‐imagination of impact, re‐conceptualized as a two‐way learning process. More support will help researchers and members of the public to undergo such reflective exercises.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7495079
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74950792020-09-24 The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: A scoping review Luna Puerta, Lidia Kendall, Will Davies, Bethan Day, Sophie Ward, Helen Health Expect Review Articles BACKGROUND: Biobanks increasingly employ public involvement and engagement strategies, though few studies have explored their impact. This review aims to (a) investigate how the impact of public involvement in biobanks is reported and conceptualized by study authors; in order to (b) suggest how the research community might re‐conceptualize the impact of public involvement in biobanks. METHODS: A systematic literature search of three electronic databases and the INVOLVE Evidence Library in January 2019. Studies commenting on the impact of public involvement in a biobank were included, and a narrative review was conducted. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Forty‐one studies covering thirty‐one biobanks were included, with varying degrees of public involvement. Impact was categorized according to where it was seen: ‘the biobank’, ‘people involved’ and ‘the wider research community’. Most studies reported involvement in a ‘functional’ way, in relation to improved rates of participation in the biobank. Broader forms of impact were reported but were vaguely defined and measured. This review highlights a lack of clarity of purpose and varied researcher conceptualizations of involvement. We pose three areas for further research and consideration by biobank researchers and public involvement practitioners. CONCLUSIONS: Functional approaches to public involvement in biobanking limit impact. This conceptualization of involvement emerges from an entrenched technical understanding that ignores its political nature, complicated by long‐standing disagreement about the values of public involvement. This study urges a re‐imagination of impact, re‐conceptualized as a two‐way learning process. More support will help researchers and members of the public to undergo such reflective exercises. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-05-06 2020-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7495079/ /pubmed/32378306 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13067 Text en © 2020 The Authors Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Articles
Luna Puerta, Lidia
Kendall, Will
Davies, Bethan
Day, Sophie
Ward, Helen
The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: A scoping review
title The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: A scoping review
title_full The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: A scoping review
title_fullStr The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: A scoping review
title_full_unstemmed The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: A scoping review
title_short The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: A scoping review
title_sort reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: a scoping review
topic Review Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7495079/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32378306
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13067
work_keys_str_mv AT lunapuertalidia thereportedimpactofpublicinvolvementinbiobanksascopingreview
AT kendallwill thereportedimpactofpublicinvolvementinbiobanksascopingreview
AT daviesbethan thereportedimpactofpublicinvolvementinbiobanksascopingreview
AT daysophie thereportedimpactofpublicinvolvementinbiobanksascopingreview
AT wardhelen thereportedimpactofpublicinvolvementinbiobanksascopingreview
AT lunapuertalidia reportedimpactofpublicinvolvementinbiobanksascopingreview
AT kendallwill reportedimpactofpublicinvolvementinbiobanksascopingreview
AT daviesbethan reportedimpactofpublicinvolvementinbiobanksascopingreview
AT daysophie reportedimpactofpublicinvolvementinbiobanksascopingreview
AT wardhelen reportedimpactofpublicinvolvementinbiobanksascopingreview