Abstract Aim Precision public health is an emergent field and there is no single, agreed on definition. Ongoing debates about precision public health may impact progress of research. One way to define precision public health is to clarify what it means to have expertise in this field. We drew on concepts from Collins and Evans’ (2007) framework of contributory and interactional expertise to better understand the nature of experts and expertise in precision public health. Subject and methods We conducted 25 qualitative semi-structured interviews with expert stakeholders in precision public health. We allocated stakeholders to one of two groups, which were designated as “contributory experts” and “interactional experts”. The analytical approach was guided by thematic content analysis. Results Both groups of experts agreed on what precision public health is. However, experts disagreed about whether precision public health would bring about transformational change to public health. They also disagreed about whether precision public health reduced health disparities, and they proposed different ways to improve health equity in this field. Conclusion Contributory experts and interactional experts should seek ways to respectfully and critically engage with each other to facilitate public understanding of the ethical, legal, and social implications, and critiques of the science in precision public health. This can inform the development of legitimate public policy and approaches to engage with the public in ways that uplift trust.
Bosward et al. (Wed,) studied this question.