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.

Keywords:
Biotechnology, Public consultation, Public engagement, Public involvement, Representation, Representativeness, Study sample, Biomedical research
1.
Haddow G, Cunningham-Burley S, Bruce A, Parry S: Generation Scotland: consulting publics and specialists at an early stage in a genetic database's development. Crit Public Health 2008;18:139-149.
2.
Menon D, Stafinski T: Engaging the public in priority-setting for health technology assessment: findings from a citizens' jury. Health Expect 2008;11:282-293.
3.
O'Doherty KC, Hawkins AK, Burgess MM: Involving citizens in the ethics of biobank research: informing institutional policy through structured public deliberation. Soc Sci Med 2012;75:1604-1611.
4.
Godard B, Marshall J, Laberge C: Community engagement in genetic research: results of the first public consultation for the Quebec CARTaGENE project. Community Genet 2007;10:147-158.
5.
Conklin A, Morris Z, Nolte E: What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy?: results of a systematic scoping review. Health Expect 2015;18:153-165.
6.
Abelson J, Blacksher EA, Li KK, Boesveld SE, Goold SD: Public deliberation in health policy and bioethics: mapping an emerging, interdisciplinary field. J Public Delib 2013;9:article 5.
7.
Avard D, Bucci L, Burgess M, Kaye J, Heeney C: Public health genomics (PHG) and public participation: points to consider. J Public Delib 2009;5:article 7.
8.
Kampourakis K, Vayena E, Mitropoulou C, van Schaik RH, Cooper DN, Borg J, Patrinos GP: Key challenges for next-generation pharmacogenomics: Science & Society series on Science and Drugs. EMBO Rep 2014;15:472-476.
9.
Reydon TA, Kampourakis K, Patrinos GP: Genetics, genomics and society: the responsibilities of scientists for science communication and education. Pers Med 2012;9:633-643.
10.
Mai Y, Koromila T, Sagia A, Cooper DN, Vlachopoulos G, Lagoumintzis G, Kollia P, Poulas K, Stathakopoulos V, Patrinos GP: A critical view of the general public's awareness and physicians' opinion of the trends and potential pitfalls of genetic testing in Greece. Pers Med 2011;8:551-561.
11.
Rowe G, Frewer LJ: A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Sci Technol Human Values 2005;30:251-290.
12.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics: Emerging biotechnologies: Technology, Choice and the Public Good. 2012. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/project/emerging-biotechnologies/.
13.
Mohr A, Raman S: Representing the public in public engagement: the case of the 2008 UK Stem Cell Dialogue. PLoS Biol 2012;10:e1001418.
14.
Barnett C, Mahony N: Segmenting publics - Executive Summary. 2011. http://www.esrc.ac.uk/files/public-engagement/public-dialogues/full-report-segmenting-publics.
15.
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute: The PCORI methodology report. 2013. http://www.pcori.org/assets/2013/11/PCORI-Methodology-Report.pdf.
16.
Abelson J, Forest PG, Eyles J, Smith P, Martin E, Gauvin FP: Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Soc Sci Med 2003;57:239-251.
17.
Longstaff H, Burgess MM: Recruiting for representation in public deliberation on the ethics of biobanks. Public Underst Sci 2010;19:212-224.
18.
Martin GP: ‘Ordinary people only': knowledge, representativeness, and the publics of public participation in healthcare. Sociol Health Illn 2008;30:35-54.
19.
Dryzek JS, Niemeyer S: Discursive representation. Am Polit Sci Rev 2008;102:481-493.
20.
Parkinson J: Deliberating in the Real World: Problems of Legitimacy in Deliberative Democracy. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006, 221 pp.
21.
Brown MB: Survey article: Citizen panels and the concept of representation. J Polit Philos 2006;14:203-225.
22.
Litva A, Coast J, Donovan J, Eyles J, Shepherd M, Tacchi J, Abelson J, Morgan K: ‘The public is too subjective': Public involvement at different levels of health-care decision making. Soc Sci Med 2002;54:1825-1837.
23.
Parkinson J: Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. Polit Stud 2003;51:180-196.
24.
Lander J, Hainz T, Hirschberg I, Strech D: Current practice of public involvement activities in biomedical research and innovation: a systematic qualitative review. PLoS One 2014;9:e113274.
25.
Rowe G, Frewer LJ: Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci Technol Human Values 2000;25:3-29.
26.
Nanz P, Fritsche M: Handbuch Bürgerbeteiligung: Verfahren und Akteure, Chancen und Grenzen. Bonn, Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, 2012 [Schriftenreihe/Bundeszentrale für Politische Bildung, vol. 1200].
27.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Evaluating Public Participation in Policy Making. 2005. http://www.oecd.org/gov/evaluatingpublicparticipationinpolicymaking.htm.
28.
Warburton D, Wilson R, Rainbow E: Making a Difference: A guide to evaluating public participation in central government. 2011. http://www.involve.org.uk/evaluation-guide/.
29.
Kronberger N, Holtz P, Wagner W: Consequences of media information uptake and deliberation: focus groups' symbolic coping with synthetic biology. Public Underst Sci 2012;21:174-187.
30.
Shepherd R, Barnett J, Cooper H, Coyle A, Moran-Ellis J, Senior V, Walton C: Towards an understanding of British public attitudes concerning human cloning. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:377-392.
31.
Hainz T, Bossert S, Strech D: Collective agency and the concept of ‘public' in public involvement: a practice-oriented analysis. BMC Med Ethics 2016;17:48.
32.
Molster C, Maxwell S, Youngs L, Potts A, Kyne G, Hope F, Dawkins H, O'Leary P: An Australian approach to the policy translation of deliberated citizen perspectives on biobanking. Public Health Genomics 2012;15:82-91.
33.
Ahram M, Othman A, Shahrouri M: Public support and consent preference for biomedical research and biobanking in Jordan. Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21:567-570.
34.
Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K: Public perspectives on informed consent for biobanking. Am J Public Health 2009;99:2128-2134.
35.
Halverson CM, Ross LF: Attitudes of African-American parents about biobank participation and return of results for themselves and their children. J Med Ethics 2012;38:561-566.
36.
Kobayashi E, Sakurada T, Ueda S, Satoh N: Public involvement in pharmacogenomics research: a national survey on patients' attitudes towards pharmacogenomics research and the willingness to donate DNA samples to a DNA bank in Japan. Cell Tissue Bank 2011;12:71-80.
37.
Abou-Zeid A, Silverman H, Shehata M, Shams M, Elshabrawy M, Hifnawy T, Rahman SA, Galal B, Sleem H, Mikhail N, Moharram N: Collection, storage and use of blood samples for future research: views of Egyptian patients expressed in a cross-sectional survey. J Med Ethics 2010;36:539-547.
38.
Nicol D, Critchley C: Benefit sharing and biobanking in Australia. Public Underst Sci 2012;21:534-555.
39.
Wong ML, Chia KS, Wee S, Chia SE, Lee J, Koh WP, Shen HM, Thumboo J, Sofjan D: Concerns over participation in genetic research among Malay-Muslims, Chinese and Indians in Singapore: a focus group study. Community Genet 2003;7:44-54.
40.
Gollust SE, Gordon ES, Zayac C, Griffin G, Christman MF, Pyeritz RE, Wawak L, Bernhardt BA: Motivations and perceptions of early adopters of personalized genomics: perspectives from research participants. Public Health Genomics 2011;15:22-30.
41.
Schulz A, Caldwell C, Foster S: ‘What are they going to do with the information?' Latino/Latina and African American perspectives on the Human Genome Project. Health Educ Behav 2003;30:151-169.
42.
Bombard Y, Miller FA, Hayeems RZ, Carroll JC, Avard D, Wilson BJ, Little J, Bytautas JP, Allanson J, Axler R, Giguere Y, Chakraborty P: Citizens' values regarding research with stored samples from newborn screening in Canada. Pediatrics 2012;129:239-247.
43.
Molster C, Maxwell S, Youngs L, Kyne G, Hope F, Dawkins H, O'Leary P: Blueprint for a deliberative public forum on biobanking policy: were theoretical principles achievable in practice? Health Expect 2013;16:211-224.
44.
Buseh AG, Underwood SM, Stevens PE, Townsend L, Kelber ST: Black African immigrant community leaders' views on participation in genomics research and DNA biobanking. Nurs Outlook 2013;61:196-204.
45.
Al-Qadire MM, Hammami MM, Abdulhameed HM, Al Gaai EA: Saudi views on consenting for research on medical records and leftover tissue samples. BMC Med Ethics 2010;11:18.
46.
Botkin JR, Rothwell E, Anderson R, Stark L, Goldenberg A, Lewis M, Burbank M, Wong B: Public attitudes regarding the use of residual newborn screening specimens for research. Pediatrics 2012;129:231-238.
47.
Ulrich A, Thompson B, Livaudais JC, Espinoza N, Cordova A, Coronado GD: Issues in biomedical research: what do Hispanics think? Am J Health Behav 2013;37:80-85.
48.
Berth H, Balck F, Dinkel A: Attitudes toward genetic testing in patients at risk for HNPCC/FAP and the German population. Genet Test 2002;6:273-280.
49.
Miller FA, Mentzakis E, Axler R, Lehoux P, French M, Tarride J, Wodchis WP, Wilson BJ, Longo C, Bytautas JP, Slater B: Do Canadian researchers and the lay public prioritize biomedical research outcomes equally? A choice experiment. Acad Med 2013;88:519-526.
50.
Rothwell E, Anderson R, Goldenberg A, Lewis MH, Stark L, Burbank M, Wong B, Botkin JR: Assessing public attitudes on the retention and use of residual newborn screening blood samples: a focus group study. Soc Sci Med 2012;74:1305-1309.
51.
Marsh V, Kombe F, Fitzpatrick R, Molyneux S, Parker M: Managing misaligned paternity findings in research including sickle cell disease screening in Kenya: ‘consulting communities' to inform policy. Soc Sci Med 2013;96:192-199.
52.
Terry SF, Christensen KD, Metosky S, Rudofsky G, Deignan KP, Martinez H, Johnson-Moore P, Citrin T: Community engagement about genetic variation research. Popul Health Manag 2012;15:78-89.
53.
Godard B, Ozdemir V, Fortin M, Egalité N: Ethnocultural community leaders' views and perceptions on biobanks and population specific genomic research: a qualitative research study. Public Underst Sci 2010;19:469-485.
54.
Bernhardt BA, Tambor ES, Fraser G, Wissow LS, Geller G: Parents' and children's attitudes toward the enrollment of minors in genetic susceptibility research: implications for informed consent. Am J Med Genet A 2003;116A:315-323.
55.
Kerath SM, Klein G, Kern M, Shapira I, Witthuhn J, Norohna N, Kline M, Baksh F, Gregersen P, Taioli E: Beliefs and attitudes towards participating in genetic research - a population based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2013;13:114.
56.
McCarty CA, Chapman-Stone D, Derfus T, Giampietro PF, Fost N: Community consultation and communication for a population-based DNA biobank: the Marshfield clinic personalized medicine research project. Am J Med Genet A 2008;146A:3026-3033.
57.
Murphy J, Scott J, Kaufman D, Geller G, LeRoy L, Hudson K: Public expectations for return of results from large-cohort genetic research. Am J Bioeth 2008;8:36-43.
58.
Bates BR, Harris TM: The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis and public perceptions of biomedical research: a focus group study. J Natl Med Assoc 2004;96:1051-1064.
59.
Mfutso-Bengo J, Ndebele P, Jumbe V, Mkunthi M, Masiye F, Molyneux S, Molyneux M: Why do individuals agree to enrol in clinical trials? A qualitative study of health research participation in Blantyre, Malawi. Malawi Med J 2008;20:37-41.
60.
Goldenberg AJ, Hull SC, Botkin JR, Wilfond BS: Pediatric biobanks: approaching informed consent for continuing research after children grow up. J Pediatr 2009;155:578-583.
61.
Nisselle A, Forbes R, Bankier A, Hughes E, Aitken M: Consumer contribution to the delivery of genetic health services. Am J Med Genet A 2008;146A:2266-2274.
62.
O'Daniel JM, Rosanbalm KD, Boles L, Tindall GM, Livingston TM, Haga SB: Enhancing geneticists' perspectives of the public through community engagement. Genet Med 2012;14:243-249.
63.
Roberts LW, Warner TD, Geppert CM, Rogers M, Green Hammond KA: Employees' perspectives on ethically important aspects of genetic research participation: a pilot study. Compr Psychiatry 2005;46:27-33.
64.
Isler MR, Sutton K, Cadigan RJ, Corbie-Smith G: Community perceptions of genomic research: implications for addressing health disparities. N C Med J 2013;74:470-476.
65.
Molyneux CS, Wassenaar DR, Peshu N, Marsh K: ‘Even if they ask you to stand by a tree all day, you will have to do it (laughter)…!': community voices on the notion and practice of informed consent for biomedical research in developing countries. Soc Sci Med 2005;61:443-454.
© 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel
2016
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.