Coordinated attempts to promote systematic approaches to the design and evaluation of science communication efforts have generally lagged behind the proliferation and diversification of those efforts. To address this, we founded the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) Science of Science Communication Scientific Interest Group (SciOSciComm-SIG) and undertook a mixed-methods survey-based evaluation of the group one year after its founding. Respondents indicated ongoing interest and some participation in public-facing science communication while identifying specific barriers, and praised the role of the SIG in expanding access to information about evidence-based practices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hilliard et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: