The infective nurture of pandemic comics

How best to share research with study participants? A randomised crossover trial comparing a comic, lay summary, and scientific abstract

Healthcare research is traditionally published in academic papers, coded in scientific language, and locked behind paywalls - an inaccessible form for many. Sharing research results with participants and the public in an appropriate, accessible manner, is an ethical practice directed in research guidance. Evidence-based recommendations for the medium used are scant, but science communication advice advocates principles which may be fulfilled well by the medium of comics. We report a randomised crossover study conducted online, comparing participant preferences for research results shared in the medium of a comic, a traditional lay text summary, and the control approach of a scientific abstract. 1236 respondents read all three summaries and ranked their most and least preferred formats. For the most preferred summary, the comic was chosen by 716 (57.9%), lay summary by 321 (26.0%), and scientific abstract by 199 (16.1%) respondents. For the least preferred summary the scientific abstract was chosen by 614 (49.7%), lay summary by 380 (30.7%) and comic by 242 (19.6%). Review of free-text responses identified key reasons for the majority preferring the comic over the others, which included finding this easier to read and understand, more enjoyable to consume, and more satisfactory as a medium of communication.

Public engagement with clinical research on social media; which visual medium works best? A 5-year retrospective analysis

'Public engagement' describes a collaborative relationship between scientists and the public we serve. This has the potential to improve clinical research and is encouraged by key research funding bodies, however the objective evidence base for effective approaches remains limited. Social media algorithms determine what content users see and are known to weight post media differently. While visual content is understood to improve reach and engagement broadly, less is known about which kinds of visuals are most effective for engaging people with clinical research. We present a five year retrospective analysis of public engagement with Facebook posts made by an independent medical research institute, classified by their visual media content. Inclusion of visual post media was associated with positive effects on both reach and engagement. We present medium and strong evidence that this effect was most pronounced for comics compared to other visual media types. This data evidences objective value of using comics and other visual media for public engagement with clinical research. The metrics evaluated are easily accessible on many social media platforms meaning this approach could readily be applied by other researchers to measure the impact of their public engagement efforts, and inform science communication strategies and resource allocation.