The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic required an immediate global clinical research response. The ACTIV (Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines)-3 trials and the ACTIV-associated Outpatient Treatment with Anti-Coronavirus Immunoglobulin trial used Good Participatory Practices (GPP) to develop materials for study implementation from a global network perspective. GPP guidelines offer a framework for engaging stakeholders throughout the research process. This paper provides an overview of the materials developed and their applicability in various settings, reports results from a survey of study site personnel on the materials’ usefulness, summarizes important lessons learned, and serves as a reference for networks eager to apply GPP. Survey results showed that flipbooks and overview videos were highly ranked. Stakeholder input was valuable in developing easily understandable participant-facing materials with culturally appropriate images. Materials should be available to submit with the initial protocol submissions to ethics committees, and in formats that accommodate a wide range of institutional resources, policies, and infection-control practices. This article emphasizes the importance of GPP, including stakeholder consultation, in developing materials that support clinical research and address language, cultural, and sociopolitical barriers during a pandemic. The findings will be used to optimize efforts and resource allocation for new and ongoing studies.

Access to adequate food is one of the Human Rights set out in international law and hence its delivery (through policy) is the role of government. ‘Food policy’ cannot be the role of a single government department, however, since regulations must take care of public goods (e.g. public health and protecting the natural environment) while also creating an economic environment attractive to private sector participation. From the mid-20th century, much of food policy was driven by a need to encourage the production base, but more recently the importance of considering food policy through the lens of nutritional requirements is increasingly recognised, alongside the importance of minimising environmental damage. This review paper draws on experience of working with policymakers (in particular the Scottish Government) and of active participation in an EC-commissioned project. It highlights the need for the research community to invest time and resources in understanding what evidence policymakers are asking for and to consider that alongside evidence from those who will be impacted by the policy (stakeholders). Examples of effective ways of engaging stakeholders and policy communities simultaneously are outlined and the paper provides some thoughts on the boundaries between the science and policy communities and how to bridge them. The Case Study also highlights the importance of evidence to inform prioritisation and consultation at a local level when aiming to meet multiple policy goals nationally.

As societies become more concerned with their impacts on future generations, the question of how to translate that concern into greater consideration in contemporary decision-making is coming to the fore. Despite growing societal acceptance of the ethics of obligations to the future – as reflected in record-high number of future-sensitive constitutions and international treaties – present generations’ promises to future generations remain unfulfilled. This article explains why and offers an alternative approach to future-proofing. After providing a systematic account of the multiple efforts at aligning the actions of decision-makers with the interests of future generations, it argues that achieving the inclusion of future generations’ interests in contemporary policymaking requires more than their legal codification and the establishment of new and typically scattered institutions, mechanisms and procedures. It rather calls for a more holistic, future-orientated and proactive approach by all public authorities. These must increasingly be expected to create the conditions not only for policymakers to consider the temporal dimension of their decisions, but also for all stakeholders – including new dedicated institutions – to hold present people accountable to currently non-existent future generations. To do so beyond the environment and climate space is a matter of urgency. This is the spirit animating this Special Issue devoted to long-term risks and future generations: to nurture a more imaginative theorisation and operationalisation of the recognition of future generations’ interests in contemporary policymaking beyond today’s institutional and conceptual models.

Universities are expected to play a pivotal role in promoting environmental conservation goals, yet a comprehensive analysis of their actual contributions remains limited. This study delves into the perceptions of socio-environmental responsibility among faculty members within Iran’s top 13 universities. Using random cluster sampling, we collected 410 questionnaires from these institutions, evaluating socio-environmental responsibility through eight distinct variables. The outcomes unveil widespread deficiencies in responsibility across all universities, with 66% exhibiting low levels of engagement. Notably, Gorgan University of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources displays the lowest level, while Bu-Ali Sina University ranks highest. The research variables exhibit significant positive correlations, elucidating the interconnectedness of different aspects of socio-environmental responsibility. Furthermore, the study identifies a significant disparity in mean university socio-environmental responsibility concerning gender, although no significant relationships are found with factors such as professors’ academic rank, employment status or age. Sixteen codes are highlighted based on qualitative analysis. These findings underscore the urgency for universities to redefine their roles within the community and prioritize community empowerment, stakeholder engagement, capacity building and environmental education. By addressing these facets, universities can elevate their levels of socio-environmental responsibility and contribute more effectively to environmental conservation efforts.

Engineers must engage project stakeholders effectively if stakeholder needs are to be met, and prototypes are key tools for communicating design form and function. Quality stakeholder engagement in the front end of design processes, in particular, is critical in the success or failure of design projects. As remote stakeholder engagement has become increasingly common as industry trends toward distributed design, there is a need to develop the theory and practices behind effective remote design processes, which have not yet been as well-studied as in-person design. This study explored the prototyping strategies for remote stakeholder engagement during front-end design used by 10 engineering practitioners and 10 senior engineering students through semi-structured interviews. Prototyping strategies were found to overlap with many of the strategies described by prior literature that are not specific to remote engagement modes, though several of these strategies were adapted to the remote context, and three emergent strategies for prototyping in remote engagements were identified. Designers’ perceptions of remote versus in-person prototyping strategies for stakeholder engagement in front-end design, including perceived advantages and limitations, were also explored, and recommendations for educators to better prepare engineering students for hybrid and remote work are provided.

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization established by the U.S. Congress to fund comparative clinical effectiveness research focusing on patient-centered outcomes through the engagement of stakeholders. Evaluation of emerging healthcare innovations is one of PCORI’s five National Priorities for Health. One such initiative is PCORI’s Emerging Technologies and Therapeutics Reports program, established to provide timely overviews of evidence on new drugs and other healthcare technologies. This article provides an overview of completed and ongoing Emerging Technologies and Therapeutics Reports including lessons learned to date. In addition to systematic searches, systematic selection of studies, and transparent reporting of the available evidence, informed by a select number of stakeholders (i.e., key informants), these reports focus on contextual factors shaping the diffusion of emerging technologies that are often not reported in the medical literature. This article also compares processes and methodologies of health technology assessments (HTAs) from a selected number of national and international publicly funded agencies with a goal toward potential future enhancement of PCORI’s Emerging Technologies and Therapeutics Reports program. HTAs vary considerably in terms of funding, types of assessments, the role of manufacturers, stakeholder engagement, timeline to complete from the start to the finish of a draft report publication, and communication of uncertainty for informed decision making. Future Emerging Technologies and Therapeutics Reports may focus on rapid reports to support a more expedient development of evidence. Future research could explore the role of contextual factors identified in these reports on targeted evidence generation.

A predominant assumption in studies of deliberative democracy is that stakeholder engagements will lead to rational consensus and to a common discourse on corporate social and environmental responsibilities. Challenging this assumption, we show that conflict is ineradicable and important and that affects constitute the dynamics of change of the discourses of responsibilities. On the basis of an analysis of social media engagements in the context of the grand challenge of plastic pollution, we argue that civil society actors use mobilization strategies with their peers and inclusive-dissensus strategies with corporations to convert them to a new discourse. These strategies use moral affects to blame and shame corporations and solidarity affects to create feelings of identification with the group and to avoid disengagement and polarization. Our research contributes to the literature on deliberative democracy and stakeholder engagement in social media in the collective constructions of discourses on grand challenges.

Stakeholder engagement is increasingly expected by funders and valued by researchers in clinical and translational science, yet many researchers lack access to expert consultation or training in selecting appropriate stakeholder engagement methods. We describe the development of a novel Stakeholder Engagement Navigator webtool. We conducted an environmental scan and literature review, along with investigator interviews, surveys, and engagement expert facilitated group discussion. We formally reviewed and cataloged 29 distinct engagement methods. To develop the webtool, we used an iterative design process that followed Design Thinking phases: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. As prioritized during user testing, the Stakeholder Engagement Navigator webtool both educates and guides investigators in selecting an engagement method based on key criteria. The V1.0 Navigator webtool filters methods first by purpose of engagement (noted by 62% of users as the highest priority criteria), then by budget, time per stakeholder interaction, and total interactions. The tool is available at DICEMethods.org. The Stakeholder Engagement Navigator webtool is a user-centered, interactive webtool suitable for use by researchers seeking guidance on appropriate stakeholder engagement methods for clinical and translational research projects.