There is increasing recognition of the crucial need for robust community engagement in health research and clinical trials. Despite this awareness, challenges persist in bridging the gap between researchers and communities. Much of the current discourse focuses on addressing issues such as cultural humility and equitable partnerships. To expand this conversation, we conducted community engagement studios, following the model by Joosten et al. We wanted to gather perspectives on research involvement across New Mexico. This process and resultant findings offer valuable insights into effective community engagement practices and advance clinical and translational science by amplifying community voices and needs.

The COVID-19 pandemic has spotlighted the importance of high-quality data for empirical health research and evidence-based political decision-making. To leverage the full potential of these data, a better understanding of the determinants and conditions under which people are willing to share their health data is critical. Building on the privacy theory of contextual integrity, the privacy calculus, and previous findings regarding different data types and recipients, we argue that established social norms shape the acceptance of novel practices of data collection and use. To investigate the willingness to share health data, we conducted a preregistered vignette experiment. The scenarios experimentally varied the vignette dimensions by data type, recipient, and research purpose. While some findings contradict our hypotheses, the results indicate that all three dimensions affected respondents’ data sharing decisions. Additional analyses suggest that institutional and social trust, privacy concerns, technical affinity, altruism, age, and device ownership influence the willingness to share health data.

Engagement in health research is increasingly practised worldwide. Yet many questions remain under debate in the ethics field about its contribution to health research and these debates have largely not been informed by those who have been engaged in health research. This paper addresses the following key questions: what should the ethical goals of engagement in health research be and how should it be performed? Qualitative data were generated by interviewing 22 people with lived experience, members of the public, and engagement managers about power sharing in health research. Thematic analysis of study data identified the following five themes: the value of engagement in research, ideal engagement, tokenistic engagement, terms to describe those engaged, and engagement roles in research. The paper presents that data and then considers what insights it offers for what engagement should look like—its ethical goals and approach—according to those being engaged.

This paper focuses on recent developments in UK health research policy, which place new pressures on researchers to address issues of accountability and impact through the implementation of patient and public involvement (PPI). We draw on an in-depth interview study with 20 professional researchers, and we analyse their experiences of competing for research funding, focusing on PPI as a process of professional research governance. We unearth dominant professional narratives of scepticism and alternative identifications in their enactment of PPI policy. We argue that such narratives and identifications evidence a resistance to ways in which patient involvement has been institutionalised and to the resulting subject-positions researchers are summoned to take up. We show that the new subjectivities emerging in this landscape of research governance as increasingly disempowered, contradictory and fraught with unresolved tensions over the ethical dimensions of the researchers’ own professional identities.

The Berlin Twin Registry has its focus on health research. It is operated as a private company, making twin studies available to academic institutions as well as commercial partners in the area of biotechnology and nutrition. Recruitment is based on invitation in the context of mass media coverage of scientific results. Phenotyping in the unselected twin subjects is directed toward intermediate phenotypes that can bear on common diseases. These phenotypes include proteomic approaches and gene expression. Some results are briefly described to give an impression of the range of research topics and related opportunities for retrospective and prospective collaborative research.