ArticleImmunology and cell biology2026
Benefits of public engagement in research and barriers to participation: a UK-based survey of academic scientists and support staff including international respondents.
Article in Immunology and cell biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Impact of a large-scale interactive and immersive science pop-up shop about infection and hygiene on visitors and volunteers.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Public engagement is increasingly central to research, especially in biomedical fields, fostering dialogue between scientists and society, building trust and ensuring real-world relevance. However, as scientific and clinical progress accelerates, the gap between researchers and the public continues to widen, underscoring the need for deeper, more meaningful engagement. Despite the acknowledged value of public engagement for both researchers and the public, we know relatively little about academics' views on opportunities and potential barriers to participation. Using questionnaires and interviews, this study captured insights from 99 researchers and professionals across academic disciplines, career stages and geographical and cultural contexts. Respondents consistently regarded public engagement as an important and rewarding aspect of research, teaching and institutional responsibilities, with the potential to enhance public understanding, acceptance and societal impact. However, enthusiasm was tempered by persistent barriers, including academic workloads, inadequate resources and support, and a lack of formal recognition within career progression. Respondents emphasized the need for systemic reforms to enable greater participation, including tailored training, sustained funding and institutional frameworks that acknowledge and reward engagement. Overall, the findings demonstrate that while motivation for public engagement is widespread, structural and systemic challenges limit its full potential. Addressing these barriers requires coordinated action from universities, funders and policymakers to establish and embed public engagement more consistently as an integral component of academic research and higher education.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.