Explore the vast range of titles available.

A deadly virus suddenly explodes into the population. A political movement gathers pace, and then quickly vanishes. An idea takes off like wildfire, changing our world forever. We live in a world that's more interconnected than ever before. Our lives are shaped by outbreaks - of disease, of misinformation, even of violence - that appear, spread and fade away with bewildering speed. To understand them, we need to learn the hidden laws that govern them. From 'superspreaders' who might spark a pandemic or bring down a financial system to the social dynamics that make loneliness catch on, The Rules of Contagion offers compelling insights into human behaviour and explains how we can get better at predicting what happens next. Along the way, Adam Kucharski explores how innovations spread through friendship networks, what links computer viruses with folk stories - and why the most useful predictions aren't necessarily the ones that come true.

Background Although research participants are generally interested in receiving results from studies in which they participate, health researchers rarely communicate study findings to participants. The present study was designed to provide opportunity for a broad group of health researchers to describe their experiences and concerns related to sharing results (i.e. aggregate study findings) with research participants. Methods We used a mixed–methods concurrent triangulation design, relying on an online survey to capture health researchers’ experiences, perceptions and barriers related to sharing study results with participants. Respondents were health researchers who conduct research that includes the consent of human subjects and hold a current appointment at an accredited academic medical institution within the United States. For quantitative data, the analytic strategy focused on item-level descriptive analyses. For the qualitative data, analyses focused on a priori themes and emergent subthemes. Results Respondents were 414 researchers from 44 academic medical institutions; 64.5% reported that results should always be shared with participants, yet 60.8% of respondents could identify studies in which they had a leadership role where results were not shared. Emergent subthemes from researchers’ reasons why results should be shared included participant ownership of findings and benefits of results sharing to science. Reasons for not sharing included concerns related to participants’ health literacy and participants’ lack of desire for results. Across all respondents who described barriers to results sharing, the majority described logistical barriers. Conclusions Study findings contribute to the literature by documenting researchers’ perspectives and experiences about sharing results with research participants, which can inform efforts to improve results sharing. Most respondents indicated that health research results should always be shared with participants, although the extent to which many respondents described barriers to results sharing as well as reported reasons not to share results suggests difficulties with a one-size-fits-all approach to improving results sharing.

Background The field of dissemination and implementation (D&I) research has grown immensely in recent years. However, the field of dissemination research has not coalesced to the same degree as the field of implementation research. To advance the field of dissemination research, this review aimed to (1) identify the extent to which dissemination frameworks are used in dissemination empirical studies, (2) examine how scholars define dissemination, and (3) identify key constructs from dissemination frameworks. Methods To achieve aims 1 and 2, we conducted a scoping review of dissemination studies published in D&I science journals. The search strategy included manuscripts published from 1985 to 2020. Articles were included if they were empirical quantitative or mixed methods studies about the dissemination of information to a professional audience. Studies were excluded if they were systematic reviews, commentaries or conceptual papers, scale-up or scale-out studies, qualitative or case studies, or descriptions of programs. To achieve aim 1, we compiled the frameworks identified in the empirical studies. To achieve aim 2, we compiled the definitions from dissemination from frameworks identified in aim 1 and from dissemination frameworks identified in a 2021 review (Tabak RG, Am J Prev Med 43:337-350, 2012). To achieve aim 3, we compile the constructs and their definitions from the frameworks. Findings Out of 6017 studies, 89 studies were included for full-text extraction. Of these, 45 (51%) used a framework to guide the study. Across the 45 studies, 34 distinct frameworks were identified, out of which 13 (38%) defined dissemination. There is a lack of consensus on the definition of dissemination. Altogether, we identified 48 constructs, divided into 4 categories: process, determinants, strategies, and outcomes. Constructs in the frameworks are not well defined. Implication for D&I research This study provides a critical step in the dissemination research literature by offering suggestions on how to define dissemination research and by cataloging and defining dissemination constructs. Strengthening these definitions and distinctions between D&I research could enhance scientific reproducibility and advance the field of dissemination research.

bims: Biomed News. February 5, 2017-Present. https://biomed.news/, Created by Thomas Krichel and directed by Gavin P. McStay. Free. Accessible via any web browser.bims: Biomed News. February 5, 2017-Present. https://biomed.news/, Created by Thomas Krichel and directed by Gavin P. McStay. Free. Accessible via any web browser.

Video abstracts have been proposed as a tool to disseminate research through to social networks. However, its association with metrics of research dissemination has not been adequately investigated, particularly in the field of medical research. The aim of this study was to assess the association between video abstracts and citations, views and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) of research papers. A cross-sectional study of research reports published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) over a 3-year period was conducted. An inverse binomial regression was used to assess factors associated with citations, views and AAS. The model included the presence of video abstracts as well as other independent covariables as potential confounding factors. 500 research reports were included in the analysis and 152 benefited from a video abstract. The median time from publication was 3.0 (2.2 to 3.6) years and 72% were RCTs. Research reports published with a video abstract were associated with an increase in citations (IRR 1.15), although this estimate came with uncertainty ranging from virtually no effect to a worthwhile effect (95% CI 0.98 to 1.35). There were also associated with a worthwhile increase in views (IRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.54) as well as with an increase in AAS (IRR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44). To conclude, video abstracts are associated with a worthwhile increase in the number of views of research reports. They are also associated with an increase in citations and social attention, although the association may be small.

Background Researchers are mandated ethically to share study results with participants, and funding agencies emphasize dissemination to others with relevant lived experience. Many researchers, however, find it difficult to communicate study purposes, methods, results, and significance to patients. Our Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) piloted “co-presentation,” which involves researchers and patient partners jointly presenting results to other patients. The SPIN Patients Alongside Investigators in Research-Sharing (SPIN-PAIRS) Trial will be conducted as part of a 90-min virtual research event for people with systemic sclerosis (SSc, scleroderma) and will compare patient and researcher partner co-presentation versus researcher-alone presentation. Primary outcomes will be event attendee ratings of presentations on (1) information completeness, (2) understandability, (3) relevance to patients, and (4) trust in findings. Secondary objectives are to (1) conduct subgroup analyses of primary outcomes by participant characteristics (gender, age, race or ethnicity, country, education level, health literacy) and (2) use qualitative interviews to better understand outcome ratings and inform co-presentation. Methods This will be a mixed-method study with (1) a two-arm parallel superiority randomized controlled trial embedded in a patient-oriented research event and (2) interviews with patient and researcher co-presenters, separately, and with trial participants. Pre-event, researchers will be selected to present via an open call for abstracts and a patient-led selection committee. To avoid presentation-related biases, pre-event, researchers will record researcher-alone presentations. They will then receive co-presentation training and develop co-presentations with patient partners, which will also be recorded. Eligible trial participants will be adults aged 18 or older who indicate they have been diagnosed with SSc by a physician. We will recruit participants via social media and email lists from our multinational SPIN Cohort and from patient organization partners to attend the event and rate presentations. Participants will be recruited to register for the event beginning in August 2025. Registered participants will be invited to confirm their registration and enroll in the trial on the day of the event. We will require at least 116 participants for ≥ 80% power but will not restrict the number of enrollees. We will randomly assign event attendees 1:1 to virtual rooms with (1) four pre-recorded patient-researcher co-presentations or (2) four pre-recorded researcher-alone presentations. The same studies will be presented in each arm with live questions and answers after each presentation in each virtual room. Attendees will rate each presentation immediately following the presentation. Participants will not be informed that they are part of a randomized trial, or that two conditions are being compared and will be blind to study comparisons and hypotheses. Presenters will not be blinded during the event. We will compare outcomes, all measured via 0–10 numerical rating scales, using linear mixed models with four observations per participant for each outcome (one observation for each presentation). Interviews will be conducted < 2 weeks post-event, and verbatim transcripts will be analyzed using an inductive-deductive thematic approach. Discussion Findings will contribute to the evidence base on effective strategies for sharing results with study participants and others with relevant lived experience. Trial registration ISRCTN12805381 ( https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12805381 )

Although critical to enacting change, effectively communicating clinical and public health research results remains a challenge. In a webinar that occurred on December 7, 2023, a group of clinical and public health researchers and communications specialists convened to share their experiences using plain language materials to communicate research results. Herein, they provide practical guidance and case examples of lay summaries, infographics, data dashboards, and zines, along with challenges and potential solutions. Discussion illuminated the critical importance of partnering with communities who represent the intended beneficiaries of the research to plan, create, and disseminate materials. Accordingly, researchers should plan early, prepare, and dedicate resources for results dissemination. Researchers can use this guidance to develop plain language research dissemination materials, help connect with their audiences to inform and influence their understanding, and empower action to ultimately improve health and well-being.

Background: Open Science seeks to render research outputs visible, accessible and reusable. In this context, Research Data and Research Software sharing and dissemination issues provide real challenges to the scientific community, as consequence of recent progress in political, legal and funding requirements. Methods: We take advantage from the approach we have developed in a precedent publication, in which we have highlighted the similarities between the Research Data and Research Software definitions. Results: The similarities between Research Data and Research Software definitions can be extended to propose protocols for Research Data dissemination and evaluation derived from those already proposed for Research Software dissemination and evaluation. We also analyze FAIR principles for these outputs. Conclusions: Our proposals here provide concrete instructions for Research Data and Research Software producers to make them more findable and accessible, as well as arguments to choose suitable dissemination platforms to complete the FAIR framework. Future work could analyze the potential extension of this parallelism to other kinds of research outputs that are disseminated under similar conditions to those of Research Data and Research Software, that is, without widely accepted publication procedures involving editors or other external actors and where the dissemination is usually restricted through the hands of the production team.

Social media is opening up new avenues for disseminating research outputs. While prior literature points to the essential role of Twitter in this context, evidence on what determines variation in researchers´ Twitter engagement remains scarce. In this account-level study of Twitter usage, we consider how research productivity, research quality, and participation in academic conferences relate to Twitter uptake, activity and popularity, while also taking into account differences between academic disciplines. We use a population sample comprising data on Twitter engagement of researchers employed at the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, Europe´s largest applied research organization. We find that participation in academic conferences is strongly associated with Twitter uptake and popularity, but not with Twitter activity as such. We also find positive associations between research productivity and Twitter uptake as well as between research quality and popularity. Moreover, physicists use Twitter more than researchers from other disciplines, female researchers use Twitter less, and scientific age is negatively associated with Twitter activity. Our findings contribute to the literature on academic social media usage by providing indications for both push and pull mechanisms at play within social media research dissemination.

Background Research results are often not communicated to study participants or others with relevant lived experience. Effective communication of research results would help study participants understand their contribution to research and could improve trust in research and likelihood of research participation. Few randomized controlled trials (RCTs), however, have compared the effectiveness of research communication tools, and it is not known which tools work best for different people. We will conduct the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network—Communicating Latest Evidence and Results (SPIN-CLEAR) trial series via the multi-national SPIN Cohort to compare tool effectiveness. Primary objectives of each RCT will be to compare tools based on (1) information completeness, (2) understandability, and (3) ease of use. We will additionally evaluate comprehension of key aspects of disseminated research; likelihood that participants would enroll in a similar future study; and, for all primary and secondary outcomes, outcomes by participant characteristics (gender, age, race or ethnicity, country, language, education level, health literacy). Methods An advisory team of people with systemic sclerosis (SSc, also known as scleroderma) participated in developing research questions, selecting outcomes, and designing the series of parallel-arm RCTs that will each compare two or more tools or tool variations to a plain-language summary comparator; the common comparator will facilitate across-trial comparisons. In each RCT, people with SSc and researchers will select a recent SSc research study to disseminate. Tools will be developed by experienced tool developers and people with SSc. SPIN Cohort participants (current N eligible = 1522 from 50 SPIN sites in Australia, Canada, France, UK, USA) and additional participants recruited via social media and patient organization partners who consent to participate will be randomized to a dissemination tool or plain-language summary comparator and complete outcomes. Analyses will be intent-to-treat and use linear regression models. Discussion Each trial in the planned series of trials will build upon knowledge from previous trials. Results will contribute to the evidence base on how to best disseminate results to study participants and others with relevant lived experience. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06373263. Registered on April 17, 2024 (first trial in series).