Key lessons
This page provides a high-level overview of some of the key learnings derived from the ten public engagement projects conducted during the first IMPRINT funding cycle, based on interviews with the project leads of the individual projects.
Artist-scientist collaboration can elevate the impact of public engagement projects
Many IMPRINT project leads are scientists or physicians who do not have much previous experience working with creative content. The partnerships that were formed between creative content developers and people with a more scientific background in the context of IMPRINT’s Public Engagement Projects elevated the impact of the projects.
There are many different ways to initiate discussions about vaccines
IMPRINT’s ten Public Engagement Projects used varied methods to encourage an open dialogue about vaccination and vaccine hesitancy. Some projects focused on disseminating science and expert advice about vaccines while others used more indirect approaches such as encouraging citizen dialogue or gamification.
Additional funding and time may be needed to evaluate project results over time
In these short-term projects, most project leads were only able to measure the reach of the project during the project runtime. Additional funding and time would have helped more project teams to evaluate the long-term result of their project and examine if they helped drive up vaccine uptake in the areas where they worked. A more thorough evaluation process can be valuable to hone future public engagement approaches and identify what works, and what barriers remain to vaccine uptake once hesitancy has been addressed.
Small pilot projects have a huge potential to scale up
Many of these projects had significant upfront costs (for example developing training material or content), scaling up the reach of these outputs could be achieved with relatively little funding.
New and improved connections are important project outcomes
IMPRINT’s Public Engagement Projects helped bring together people from different discipline areas. The relationships that were built during these projects are an important aspect of their overall impact. Enduring connections were made between communities and health systems, and between researchers and collaborators among others.
Local communities should be engaged throughout the entire project life cycle
Public engagement is the most effective when the target audience – here local communities – is involved in the initiative throughout the entire project. Not only does this get buy-in but it allows the tailoring of activities and content to the specific questions, behaviours and misconceptions of that audience. Attitudes towards vaccination are highly context-specific.
Public engagement does not exist in a vacuum
It is critical that project teams consider how their projects can have both intended and unintended consequences in the areas they are conducted. For example, one IMPRINT project lead contacted the local government where she worked to inform them that as a result of her project she expected demand for vaccines to go up in some local areas. The authorities were then able to increase supply to the relevant dispensaries. Projects can also have unintended negative consequences that should be thought through in advance.
Collaboration with governments can improve project impacts
As discussed in the learning above, projects can have a more lasting impact if the project team collaborates with local governments. Working within government structures can make public engagement projects both sustainable and impactful.
Inspiration can be a stronger motivator than fear
Promoting vaccination through highlighting the dangers of disease can be a powerful public health message. However, there are other ways to motivate people to get vaccinated, for example getting people excited about science and immunity by sharing information about medical innovation and putting a positive spin on novel health technology.
Getting out of the lab can provide scientists with valuable information
Many projects have generated new kinds of data for researchers and a greater understanding of public perspectives and fears about vaccines by engaging with and learning from members of local communities. This knowledge can help shape future research priorities and focus areas.