Innovative methods for dissemination of research results during a Pandemic: A Game- Changing Approach in the ORCHESTRA project

Innovative methods for dissemination of research results during a Pandemic: A Game- Changing Approach in the ORCHESTRA project | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Innovative methods for dissemination of research results during a Pandemic: A Game- Changing Approach in the ORCHESTRA project D. Pantano, R. J. Davis, S. Vitali, E. Carrara, A. Gorska, L. Carra, and 8 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5615137/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 18 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Effective communication is crucial during pandemics to mitigate fear and promote acceptance of public health measures. However, the COVID-19 pandemic revealed significant challenges, including an overwhelming volume of scientific information, poor quality control, and a rise in false or misleading data. Peer-reviewed publications often faced criticism for fast-tracked review processes, with pre-prints contributing to an increased retraction rate. These issues undermined public trust and the implementation of evidence-based measures. Methods The Horizon2020 ORCHESTRA project developed the COVID-19 Global Guidance Group (CGGG), an external expert evaluation mechanism, to critically assess scientific publications and ensure the dissemination of accurate and relevant findings. The CGGG employed the Delphi method to systematically achieve expert consensus on the evaluation of research outputs. Findings were tailored for stakeholders such as policymakers, the scientific community, and the general public. Results The CGGG evaluated over 100 peer-reviewed publications, achieving an average impact factor of 8.7 and ensuring the dissemination of evidence-based findings. The use of the Delphi method enhanced the rigor of the evaluation process and improved the targeting of communication strategies, addressing gaps in public and scientific engagement during the pandemic. Conclusions The ORCHESTRA project’s experience highlights the value of external expert evaluation, supported by consensus-building approaches like the Delphi method, in scientific dissemination during crises. Broader adoption of similar mechanisms could improve the integrity and effectiveness of communication strategies, bolstering public trust and evidence-based policymaking in future health emergencies. COVID-19 health communication scientific dissemination peer-reviewed publications general public scientific community policy makers Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Background The COVID-19 pandemic saw an unprecedented volume of publications across a range of scientific disciplines addressing all aspects of the disease 1 , 2 . The urgent need for evidence prioritized the speed of publications but led to claims of flaws in the peer review process and questions regarding the methodological quality of published COVID-19 literature 3 , 4 . Moreover, the volume of information in general, coupled with the multitude of communication tools and platforms, made it difficult for the general public to navigate the emerging evidence and to distinguish scientific evidence from misinformation 5 . Retraction rates for COVID-19 related publications were exceptionally high and according to Retraction Watch, to date over 400 COVID-19 related publications have been retracted 6 . This confusion undermined public health guidance concerning adherence to and acceptance of mitigation and prevention measures such as wearing facemasks, physical distancing and vaccination 7 . The ORCHESTRA project (Connecting European international cohorts to increase common and effective response to SARS-CoV2 Pandemic, https://orchestra-cohort.eu/ ) was funded by the European Union (EU) Horizon2020 Research and Innovation Programme to create a pan-European cohort to collect data in four cohort categories (SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, vulnerable populations, general population, and healthcare workers). The main objective of the project was to provide much-needed data to support the development of evidence-based recommendations on the control and management of the pandemic in terms of treatment, vaccine efficacy, and long-term consequences of COVID-19. The project was implemented over a four-year period and produced more than 110 peer-reviewed scientific works (average impact factor: 8.7, range 1–39; more than 400 citations collected in 26 months). Early on in the project, it became evident that the ORCHESTRA data could contribute significantly to the debate surrounding prevention and treatment of COVID-19, especially in terms of the efficacy of vaccines and utility of booster doses 8 – 19 and to the emerging body of literature concerning the long-term sequelae of COVID-19 which became known as Long-COVID or Post-COVID Syndrome (PCS) 20 – 22 . For this reason, the ORCHESTRA coordination team prioritized the dissemination strategy from the outset. The definition of “dissemination” in literature is quite broad and varies according to the process or outcome 23 . Communication, dissemination, and exploitation of results deriving from the EU Research and Innovation Programme (Horizon2020, HorizonEurope) are an obligation of the Grant Agreement signed between the European Commission and the project consortium implementing the research project. A distinction is made between the three activities where Communication refers to informing citizens, stakeholders, and the media about the project activities and results, Dissemination refers to making knowledge and results publicly available free-of-charge to those who can learn and benefit from the results, such as scientists, industry, public authorities, policymakers, civil society, and Exploitation refers to making concrete use of results for commercial, societal and political purposes 24 . The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) defines health communication as ‘the study and use of communication strategies to inform and influence individual and community decisions that enhance health’ and has underlined the importance of health communication in the prevention and control of communicable diseases 25 . Given the communication challenges as highlighted above, the ORCHESTRA project recognized the need for an innovative dissemination approach, leading to the establishment of the COVID-19 Global Guidance Group (CGGG). This external expert evaluation mechanism, unique to the ORCHESTRA project, engaged a group of experts from diverse disciplines and different EU regions to independently and rapidly assess the ORCHESTRA scientific publications to support the dissemination process. The CGGG's mandate included evaluating the relevance, completeness, and generalizability of scientific findings in the publications, with the objective of identifying and prioritizing results of greatest potential interest to the project stakeholders. Through a Delphi-based evaluation process, experts provided nuanced ratings and qualitative feedback on a selection of ORCHESTRA manuscripts ensuring objectivity and impartiality. On the basis of the evaluation, infographics, video abstracts, press releases were developed for the top scoring publications and dedicated presentations on the selected publications were organized for the scientific community. This paper delineates the methodology for setting up and implementing the CGGG and assesses the advantages and limitations of adopting this methodology in other scientific research projects, particularly during a public health crisis or pandemic situation. Methods In the ORCHESTRA project, dissemination was understood according to the broad definition provided by the European Research Executive Agency. This definition views dissemination as the process of making knowledge and research results publicly accessible, free of charge, so that anyone who can learn from and benefit from these results may do so. This approach was applied within the context of health communication, aligning with the definition from the ECDC, which emphasizes using communication strategies to inform and influence individual and community decisions to improve health. The CGGG was created to evaluate the scientific outputs of ORCHESTRA regarding their relevance, completeness, and generalizability to different geographic/socio-economic location settings and classification of information according to the target audience (e.g., the general public, the scientific community, and policymakers). The selection of experts for the CGGG prioritized scientific expertise, aiming to ensure broad representation from diverse fields such as patient advocacy, microbiology, virology, and public health. This diverse expertise was crucial not only for evaluating the relevance of scientific findings but also for ensuring that the CGGG's assessments would be comprehensive and multidisciplinary. With this carefully selected panel, the CGGG was well-equipped to conduct a thorough evaluation of the ORCHESTRA project's publications. In addition, practical factors that are common in assembling high-level advisory groups were also considered as follows: Expertise and Recognition individuals who were widely recognized as leaders in their respective fields were contacted, ensuring that the CGGG would benefit from deep and current knowledge. Availability and Commitment given the urgent nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and the importance of the ORCHESTRA project, only experts who were likely to be able to commit time to this initiative were approached. Independent and critical overview only experts that had no interdependence to the main project partners were contacted so as to ensure independence. As the experts were also involved in other COVID-19 related research activities, they presumably had a critical overview of ORCHESTRA activities and outputs as well as the context of other publications on the topic. Professional Networks existing professional networks were leveraged to identify and approach suitable candidates, so as to assemble the group quickly and ensure an ease of collaboration given the pre-existing relationship. Diversity of Perspectives experts from various geographic regions and institutional and professional backgrounds were contacted so as to ensure a diversity of perspectives. Previous Experience where possible, experts with previous experience in similar advisory roles were contacted so as to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the CGGG. This approach, combining formal criteria with practical considerations, allowed the rapid set-up of a group of top-tier experts capable of meeting the challenging demands of the ORCHESTRA project during a global health crisis. Following an introductory meeting to outline the mandate and planned activities, the CGGG conducted two rounds of evaluation (May 2023 and September 2024). Each expert completed an individual evaluation questionnaire in an Excel table, scoring a selection of manuscripts from the ORCHESTRA project based on their scientific relevance. Manuscripts were selected for evaluation based on: (1) expected scientific relevance, as determined by the ORCHESTRA coordinating group, and (2) recommendations of the top three publications from each ORCHESTRA Work Package. This process produced a core list of 10–15 manuscripts, which the CGGG scored in depth. To provide a visual summary of the evaluation process, Fig. 1 below outlines the main steps and timeline of the CGGG evaluations across two rounds. Figure 1 . This flowchart illustrates the key stages of the COVID-19 Global Guidance Group (CGGG) evaluation process within the ORCHESTRA project. The process includes two Delphi-based rounds of expert scoring, followed by the analysis of results and dissemination of high-scoring publications. The chart highlights key milestones from the initial kick-off meeting in March 2023 to the final targeted dissemination of the project's scientific results. In addition to the core list, experts provided general feedback and observations on a broader list of ORCHESTRA manuscripts in a separate Excel sheet (available at www.orchestra-cohort.eu ). The status of each manuscript (published, pre-print, or submitted) was indicated in the evaluation form. The CGGG evaluations used a Delphi-based method, where experts scored each manuscript on a scale of 1 to 4 across four categories: Relevance to the Scientific Field, Clinical Relevance, Relevance to the General Public, and Relevance to Policymakers. Scores of 1 indicated low relevance, while scores of 4 indicated very high relevance. In addition, experts provided qualitative comments to explain their scores, adding context and suggestions to guide dissemination efforts. Table 1 provides a simplified version of the Excel form used for evaluations, illustrating the categories and scoring range. Table 1 This table outlines the format used by CGGG experts to evaluate selected ORCHESTRA project publications. Publications were scored on a scale of 1 to 4 in four key areas: Clinical Relevance, Relevance to Experts, Accessibility to the General Public, and Utility for Policymakers, where 1 indicates low relevance and 4 indicates very high relevance. Experts also provided qualitative comments to support their scores, offering additional context and guidance. Publication Title Clinical Relevance Relevance to Experts Relevance to the General Public Relevance to Policymakers Comments Example Publication 1 Score: 1–4 Score: 1–4 Score: 1–4 Score: 1–4 Qualitative feedback on impact and key insights. Example Publication 2 Score: 1–4 Score: 1–4 Score: 1–4 Score: 1–4 Additional comments from evaluator. On the basis of the results of the evaluation, the ORCHESTRA team coordination team prioritized the top scoring publications for dissemination. To this end, a dedicated scientific communications company was engaged for the development of visual abstracts and infographics to be showcased on the ORCHESTRA website, with clear and accessible messages targeting the general public. Moreover, the selected publications were presented at key scientific events targeting the Scientific Community and policy makers. While the CGGG's methodology does not aim to re-evaluate the scientific validity of already peer-reviewed outputs, it serves a complementary role by enhancing the effectiveness of dissemination strategies. By focusing on the relevance and communication of findings, the CGGG aimed to ensure that critical information reached the appropriate audiences efficiently. Additionally, it provided in-progress feedback to authors during the course of a multi-year project, allowing them to align their efforts with goals that are not only relevant to the scientific community but also focused on the interests of the general public and policymakers. Results Experts' Evaluations This section provides a comprehensive overview of the CGGG's evaluations of ORCHESTRA publications across two rounds of assessment. It highlights the publications that received the highest scores overall and in specific categories, reflecting their perceived impact and relevance to different stakeholders. These evaluations offer valuable insights into the most significant contributions of the ORCHESTRA project, as judged by our panel of experts. In the first round , the two publications with the highest cumulative scores were: Porru et al. , 2022: SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infections: Incidence and Risk Factors in a Large European Multicentric Cohort of Health Workers , and Di Chiara et al. , 2022: Long-term Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children and Adults After Mild Infection. Porru et al. received high overall scores due to its clinical relevance and interest to policymakers, whereas Di Chiara et al ., 2022 demonstrated a significant impact in terms of relevance to the public and policymakers. In the evaluations by category, for the category Relevance to Experts , Tacconelli et al. , 2022: Challenges of data sharing in European Covid-19 projects: A learning opportunity for advancing pandemic preparedness and response received the highest scores in this category, highlighting the importance of data sharing at the European level. For the category Clinical Relevance , Righi et al. , 2022: Determinants of Persistence of Symptoms and Impact on Physical and Mental Wellbeing in Long-COVID: A Prospective Cohort Study was recognized as particularly relevant from a clinical perspective, especially regarding the understanding of the evolving condition of PCS. For the category Relevance to the General Public , Collatuzzo et al. , 2022: Determinants of Anti-S Immune Response at 9 Months after COVID-19 Vaccination in a Multicentric European Cohort of Healthcare Workers-ORCHESTRA Project was highly appreciated for its ability to communicate important findings to a non-expert audience. For the category Relevance to Policymakers , Tacconelli et al. , 2022 and Porru et al. , 2022 were deemed particularly useful for policymakers, providing practical guidelines and recommendations for future pandemic preparedness and response. In the second round , the two publications with the highest cumulative scores were: Chenane et al. , 2023: High sera levels of SARS-CoV-2 N antigen are associated with death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients and Gupta et al. , 2023: Host immunological responses facilitate development of SARS-CoV-2 mutations in patients receiving monoclonal antibody treatments . The former stood out for its clinical impact, particularly in improving our understanding of the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 N antigen levels and mortality in hospitalized patients. The latter received high scores for its relevance to the scientific community, offering crucial insights into how host immune responses can facilitate the development of viral mutations in patients receiving monoclonal antibody treatments. In the evaluations by category, for the category Relevance to Experts , Gupta et al ., 2023: Host immunological responses facilitate development of SARS-CoV-2 mutations in patients receiving monoclonal antibody treatments and Leomanni et al. , 2023: Determinants of Anti-S Immune Response at 12 Months after SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in a Multicentric European Cohort of Healthcare Workers-ORCHESTRA Project , received the highest scores. Gupta et al . was highlighted for its contribution to ongoing scientific research, offering crucial insights into how immune responses can drive viral evolution in patients receiving specific treatments, which is of particular relevance to virologists and immunologists. Leomanni et al ., 2023, analyzed the persistence of anti-S antibodies in healthcare workers up to 12 months post-vaccination, emphasizing the impact of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccine type on antibody durability. This study offers valuable insights into immunity trends, which can directly aid public health policy in refining booster dose schedules and vaccination strategies in healthcare settings. For the category Clinical Relevance , both Chenane et al ., 2023 and Gupta et al ., 2023 achieved the highest scores. These studies made significant contributions to understanding the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients, with Chenane et al. focusing on the correlation between N antigen levels and patient mortality, and Gupta et al. shedding light on how treatments can influence the mutation of the virus. For the category Relevance to the General Public , Tsurkalenko et al ., 2024, Rinaldi et al ., 2022, and Leomanni et al . 2023, were highlighted for their accessible approach in presenting findings relevant to a broad audience. Tsurkalenko et al. provided insights into infection spread and psychological impact at a population level, reassuring diverse groups with data on risk factors. Rinaldi et al. focused on data interoperability, indirectly benefiting the public by enhancing data-sharing frameworks in COVID-19 research. Lastly, Leomanni et al. , as already stated, examined vaccine-induced immunity durability, offering valuable information on long-term antibody persistence post-vaccination, which resonates with public interest in vaccine effectiveness over time. For the category Relevance to Policymakers , Rinaldi et al. , 2022, was recognized for providing crucial insights into data interoperability and standardization. By addressing the integration of COVID-19 data across various studies, the study supports a stronger foundation for data-driven decisions, facilitating policy-making in public health and enhancing pandemic preparedness through a standardized approach. To provide a comprehensive overview, Table 2 summarizes CGGG evaluations across rounds, with scores indicating low to very high relevance in different stakeholder categories. Note : For detailed scores and the complete evaluation data for each publication, please refer to the supplementary Excel file provided as additional material.Table 2. This table summarizes the CGGG's evaluations of selected ORCHESTRA project publications, highlighting key findings across two assessment rounds. Expert evaluations are scored numerically, where scores of 1 are considered "low," 2 as "moderate," 3 as "high," and 4 as "very high." The table provides insights into the most impactful research according to stakeholder relevance—scientific community, clinical field, the general public, and policymakers—guiding targeted dissemination efforts. Detailed scores and evaluation data for each publication can be found in the supplementary Excel file. Publication Year Relevance to Experts Clinical Relevance Relevance to the General Public Relevance to Policymakers Overall Score Porru et al ., "SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infections" 2022 High High High High/Very High High Di Chiara et al ., "Long-term Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2" 2022 High High High High High Tacconelli et al. , "Challenges of Data Sharing" 2022 Very High High High High High Righi et al ., "Long-COVID Symptoms and Wellbeing" 2022 High High High High High Collatuzzo et al ., "Anti-S Immune Response" 2022 Moderate/High High High High High Chenane et al. , "SARS-CoV-2 N Antigen and Mortality" 2023 Moderate/High High/Very High Moderate/High Moderate High Gupta et al ., "Host Immune Response and Viral Mutation" 2023 High High/Very High Moderate Moderate High Leomanni et al ., “Determinants of Anti-S Immune Response” 2023 High Moderate/High Moderate/High High High Tsurkalenko et al ., “COVID-19 Spread and Immunity in Luxemburg” 2023 Moderate Moderate High Moderate/High Moderate/High Rinaldi et al ., “Data Interoperability and Standardization” 2022 Moderate/High Moderate High Very High High It is also noteworthy that all publications evaluated by the CGGG received citations within months of their publication (Fig. 2 ), further underscoring their relevance and importance to the field of COVID-19 research. This highlights these papers' immediate impact on the scientific discourse surrounding the pandemic. Figure 2 . Cumulative citation trend of selected ORCHESTRA publications from April 2022 to September 2024, illustrating the rapid citation uptake of key papers within months of their release. Evolution of Research Priorities and the Concentration of High-Scoring Publications The distribution of top-scoring publications across the first and second rounds highlights the evolving priorities in COVID-19 research. During the early phases of the pandemic, a broad spectrum of topics – ranging from transmission risks and prevention strategies to foundational insights into vaccine efficacy – were of critical importance as governments and health organizations sought to mount an effective response. Consequently, the first round included high-scoring publications from diverse fields such as epidemiology, immunology, and public health. Notably, Porru et al. , 2022, on transmission risks among healthcare workers and Di Chiara et al. , 2022, on long-term immune responses underscore the need for foundational research across multiple domains. In the second round, however, research priorities had become more focused. As the pandemic unfolded, the scientific community's attention shifted toward specialized topics, such as the immune response's durability, viral evolution under therapeutic pressure, and the clinical markers associated with severe outcomes. Publications like Chenane et al ., 2023, and Gupta et al. , 2023, reflect this trend, concentrating on the virus's clinical impact and evolution in response to monoclonal antibody treatments. Additionally, Leomanni et al. , 2023, explored determinants of long-term immune response post-vaccination, while Rinaldi et al. , 2022, addressed crucial aspects of data interoperability and standardization, supporting policy decisions through improved data integration. Tsurkalenko et al. , 2024, expanded the scope by examining immunity trends and the psychosocial impacts of COVID-19 on the population in Luxembourg. This progression from broad foundational studies to more focused, clinically oriented research illustrates the natural adaptation of scientific priorities to meet emerging needs during a prolonged health crisis. Early studies addressed immediate, wide-ranging challenges, while later publications concentrated on advanced clinical management and long-term impacts. This evolution demonstrates how research priorities shift as a pandemic progresses, yielding fewer, more specialized studies that deepen understanding and inform policy decisions in later stages. Targeted dissemination The ORCHESTRA scientific coordinating team collaborated closely with a dedicated scientific communications company to develop visual abstracts and infographics for selected publications. However, despite the CGGG's systematic evaluations and prioritization of high-scoring papers, there were delays in producing the planned dissemination materials. This discrepancy highlights the logistical challenges faced in aligning dissemination efforts with the CGGG’s recommendations and highlights the broader challenges of managing real time dissemination in a rapidly evolving pandemic context. Despite these challenges, some of the top-scoring publications were successfully presented at key scientific meetings, including monthly Cohort Coordination Board ( https://cohortcoordinationboard.eu/ ) meetings and partner events with other EU projects, directly reaching other researchers and key stakeholders such as ECDC, EMA, HADEA, and the EC RTD. Expert Feedback and Comparative Analysis In addition to numerical evaluations, the CGGG provided qualitative feedback on the ORCHESTRA publications, offering a deeper understanding of the strengths of the research outputs and areas for potential improvement or further investigation. This feedback was collected across two rounds of evaluations, revealing both consistent themes and evolving priorities, which guided future research directions. Across both rounds, the importance of structured information sharing was a key issue emphasized by the experts, particularly in relation to pandemic preparedness and response. Publications such as Tacconelli et al. , 2022, consistently emphasized as crucial for improving data-sharing practices across Europe, underscored this need. Additionally, Rinaldi et al. , 2022 contributed significantly by addressing data interoperability, a topic essential for aligning research efforts and optimizing pandemic response. Long-COVID remained a prominent theme. In the first round, experts pointed to the necessity of comprehensive research in this area, noting the gaps in understanding the long-term effects of the condition. This focus intensified in the second round, where extended follow-up periods were recommended to provide a clearer picture of Long-COVID’s prolonged impact. Studies like Righi et al. , 2023, and Di Chiara et al ., 2022, were specifically recognized for contributing to this evolving body of knowledge. Public engagement gained prominence throughout the evaluations, with experts in the second round advocating for improved accessibility of research findings to non-specialist audiences. They recommended visual abstracts and infographics to broaden the communication strategy. This recommendation represented a shift from the initial focus on dissemination to policymakers and the scientific community. Tsurkalenko et al. , 2024, with its focus on immunity trends and psychosocial effects, exemplified this direction by addressing public awareness and the impact of COVID-19 on diverse population segments. Finally, there was a sustained call for structured policy recommendations drawn from the research findings. Specific areas such as vaccination efficacy, household transmission risks, and COVID-19’s long-term management were highlighted as critical to guiding future public health strategies. Publications like Leomanni et al. , 2023, provided essential insights for informing policy on vaccination and booster strategies, while Gupta et al. , 2023, and Chenane et al. , 2023, offered key data on clinical management and viral mutation, emphasizing the importance of adapting treatment protocols to the virus’s evolving behavior. In summary, the expert feedback provided throughout the two evaluation rounds highlighted the need for improved information sharing, deeper research on Long-COVID, enhanced public engagement, and more concrete policy recommendations. These insights reflect the evolving nature of scientific inquiry and the crucial role that targeted dissemination plays in ensuring that research findings reach the appropriate audiences in a timely and effective manner. Discussion The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted significant challenges in the effective dissemination of scientific information. Despite the interest among the general public in science and technology, research has shown that citizens do not necessarily feel informed about developments in these areas 26 . In response to this lack of engagement, as outlined above, dissemination activities are now a formal requirement of many research funding agencies 27 . However, evidence-based guidance to inform dissemination activities in research is limited 28 . Traditionally, full publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals have represented the main channel for the dissemination of results and a benchmark for excellence 29 . In support of this practice, in the EU Research and Innovation Programme, there is an obligation to publish in open access (free of charge online access for any user). However, the COVID-19 pandemic saw an unprecedented rise of pre-prints with shorter and faster review processes and their propagation on online media platforms 4 . The experience of the CGGG within the ORCHESTRA project offers valuable insights into addressing these challenges: Independent evaluation The CGGG provided an external assessment of scientific publications, offering a multidisciplinary perspective on the relevance and potential impact of research findings. This approach responds to the medical community's call for the establishment of independent advisory bodies providing evidence-based advice 30 . Targeted dissemination The CGGG's analysis allowed for the identification of the most relevant publications for different stakeholders, facilitating more targeted and effective dissemination. This is particularly important considering the variety of communication channels available, from traditional scientific journals to social media, that are becoming an increasingly popular channel for scientific dissemination, adopting tools such as infographics and blogs which are considered as being more accessible to a non-research audience 31 . Balancing speed and quality During the pandemic, there was an unprecedented rise in preprints, with shorter and faster review processes 4 . The CGGG offers a mechanism to assess the quality and relevance of these rapid publications, helping to balance the need for timely information with the importance of scientific rigor. Adaptability Although the CGGG conducted evaluations in two phases of the project, the pandemic experience suggests that it might be useful to increase the frequency of these assessments to reflect the rapidly evolving epidemiological situation 2 . Transparency and multidisciplinarity The CGGG's approach, with transparent expert selection and a multidisciplinary panel, helps address potential conflicts of interest and biases in evaluation. Limitations While the CGGG approach offers several advantages, it is important to acknowledge its limitations. First, the composition of the expert panel could introduce biases, as the perspectives and backgrounds of individual members may influence the evaluations. To mitigate this, regular updates to the panel's composition might be necessary to ensure a balance of diverse viewpoints, especially when dealing with evolving scientific landscapes. Also, the rapid pace of scientific production meant there was a temporal gap between the two rounds of evaluation and the production of the dissemination materials. This could be rectified by more frequent evaluation sessions. Additionally, while the CGGG process was conducted "in kind" for the ORCHESTRA project, applying this model to other projects could present challenges if external experts require financial compensation for their work. This would likely pose a significant burden on smaller projects with limited resources. Finally, although the CGGG demonstrated immediate success in enhancing dissemination during the ORCHESTRA project, its long-term impact on improving public understanding of science remains uncertain. Further studies are needed to evaluate the sustainability and broader applicability of this model across different fields and contexts. Conclusions While peer-reviewed scientific publications remain a fundamental pillar of the dissemination process, the experience of the COVID-19 Global Guidance Group (CGGG) within the ORCHESTRA project has highlighted the value of an external expert evaluation mechanism in enhancing scientific dissemination during a global health crisis. The CGGG model offers several key advantages, including an independent and multidisciplinary evaluation of research, more targeted and effective dissemination of scientific results, greater balance between the need for speed of evidence production and quality in scientific communication; and flexibility to adapt to rapidly evolving situations. Future research projects could consider integrating similar expert mechanisms although further research is necessary to assess the long-term effectiveness of this model and to explore how it can be implemented efficiently across various research contexts. In an era where timely and accurate scientific communication is critical, innovative approaches like the CGGG can bridge the gap between scientific knowledge production and its effective dissemination to the public and policymakers. By adopting these or similar mechanisms, the scientific community can contribute meaningfully to public understanding and engagement, ultimately maximizing the societal impact of research. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This study did not involve human participants, personal data, or clinical interventions, and therefore, ethical approval and informed consent were not required. Consent for publication Not applicable. Availability of data and materials All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 101016167, ORCHESTRA (Connecting European Cohorts to Increase Common and Effective Response to SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic). Authors' contributions D. Pantano and R.J. Davis contributed equally to this work and share first authorship. They were responsible for conceptualizing the study, writing the manuscript, and interpreting the results. E. Tacconelli and A.W. Friedrich contributed equally and share senior authorship, providing critical supervision, guidance, and final approval of the manuscript. H.G.M. Niesters, A. Agodi, E.F. Kochs, P. Niedźwiedzka-Rystwej, T.G. Krause, and D. Jahn participated in the COVID-19 Global Guidance Group (CGGG) and conducted the Delphi evaluations of the ORCHESTRA scientific publications. A. Gorska performed the graphical analyses and generated visual materials, including infographics and data visualizations. L. Carra, S. Vitali, and E. Carrara contributed to project coordination and dissemination strategy. They also provided critical feedback and assisted in revising the manuscript to enhance its clarity and coherence. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements Not applicable. References Teixeira Da Silva JA, Tsigaris P, Erfanmanesh M. Publishing volumes in major databases related to Covid-19. Scientometrics. 2021;126(1):831–42. 10.1007/s11192-020-03675-3 . Chen Q, Allot A, Leaman R, et al. LitCovid in 2022: an information resource for the COVID-19 literature. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023;51(D1):D1512–8. 10.1093/nar/gkac1005 . Jung RG, Di Santo P, Clifford C, et al. Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):943. 10.1038/s41467-021-21220-5 . Fraser N, Brierley L, Dey G et al. The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. Dirnagl U, ed. PLOS Biol . 2021;19(4):e3000959. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959 Limaye RJ, Sauer M, Ali J, et al. Building trust while influencing online COVID-19 content in the social media world. Lancet Digit Health. 2020;2(6):e277–8. 10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30084-4 . Retracted Coronavirus. (COVID-19) Papers . Retraction Watch Accessed October 1, 2024. https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/ Malecki KMC, Keating JA, Safdar N. Crisis Communication and Public Perception of COVID-19 Risk in the Era of Social Media. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72(4):697–702. 10.1093/cid/ciaa758 . Di Chiara C, Cantarutti A, Raffaella Petrara M, et al. Stronger and durable SARS-CoV-2 immune response to mRNA vaccines in 5–11 years old children with prior COVID-19. Vaccine. 2024;42(2):263–70. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.12.006 . De Maria L, Delvecchio G, Sponselli S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Re-Infections and Clinical Characteristics: A Two-Year Retrospective Study in a Large University Hospital Cohort of Vaccinated Healthcare Workers. J Clin Med. 2023;12(21):6800. 10.3390/jcm12216800 . Leomanni L, Collatuzzo G, Sansone E, et al. Determinants of Anti-S Immune Response at 12 Months after SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in a Multicentric European Cohort of Healthcare Workers—ORCHESTRA Project. Vaccines. 2023;11(10):1527. 10.3390/vaccines11101527 . Violán C, Carrasco-Ribelles LA, Collatuzzo G, et al. Multimorbidity and Serological Response to SARS-CoV-2 Nine Months after 1st Vaccine Dose: European Cohort of Healthcare Workers—Orchestra Project. Vaccines. 2023;11(8):1340. 10.3390/vaccines11081340 . Porru S, Monaco MGL, Spiteri G, et al. Incidence and Determinants of Symptomatic and Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infections After Booster Dose in a Large European Multicentric Cohort of Health Workers-ORCHESTRA Project. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2023;13(3):577–88. 10.1007/s44197-023-00139-8 . Azzini AM, Canziani LM, Davis RJ, et al. How European Research Projects Can Support Vaccination Strategies: The Case of the ORCHESTRA Project for SARS-CoV-2. Vaccines. 2023;11(8):1361. 10.3390/vaccines11081361 . Masetti M, Scuppa MF, Aloisio A, et al. Effect of a Fourth Dose of mRNA Vaccine and of Immunosuppression in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infections in Heart Transplant Patients. Microorganisms. 2023;11(3):755. 10.3390/microorganisms11030755 . Bonazzetti C, Tazza B, Gibertoni D, et al. Relationship Between Immune Response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccines and Development of Breakthrough Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: The CONTRAST Cohort. Clin Infect Dis. 2023;76(10):1761–7. 10.1093/cid/ciad016 . Collatuzzo G, De Palma G, Violante FS, et al. Temporal trends of COVID-19 antibodies in vaccinated healthcare workers undergoing repeated serological sampling: An individual-level analysis within 13 months in the ORCHESTRA cohort. Front Immunol. 2023;13:1079884. 10.3389/fimmu.2022.1079884 . Giannella M, Huth M, Righi E, et al. Using machine learning to predict antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients: the multicentre ORCHESTRA cohort. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2023;29(8):1084. .e1-1084.e7. Visci G, Zunarelli C, Mansour I, et al. Serological response after SARS-CoV2 vaccination in healthcare workers: a multicenter study. Med Lav Work Environ Health. 2022;113(2):e2022022. 10.23749/mdl.v113i2.13017 . Collatuzzo G, Visci G, Violante FS, et al. Determinants of anti-S immune response at 6 months after COVID-19 vaccination in a multicentric European cohort of healthcare workers – ORCHESTRA project. Front Immunol. 2022;13:986085. 10.3389/fimmu.2022.986085 . Righi E, Mirandola M, Mazzaferri F, et al. Determinants of persistence of symptoms and impact on physical and mental wellbeing in Long COVID: A prospective cohort study. J Infect. 2022;84(4):566–72. 10.1016/j.jinf.2022.02.003 . Gentilotti E, Górska A, Tami A, et al. Clinical phenotypes and quality of life to define post-COVID-19 syndrome: a cluster analysis of the multinational, prospective ORCHESTRA cohort. eClinicalMedicine. 2023;62:102107. 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102107 . Cegolon L, Mauro M, Sansone D, et al. A Multi-Center Study Investigating Long COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers from North-Eastern Italy: Prevalence, Risk Factors and the Impact of Pre-Existing Humoral Immunity—ORCHESTRA Project. Vaccines. 2023;11(12):1769. 10.3390/vaccines11121769 . Baumann AA, Hooley C, Kryzer E, et al. A scoping review of frameworks in empirical studies and a review of dissemination frameworks. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):53. 10.1186/s13012-022-01225-4 . European Research Executive Agency. Communication, Dissemination & Exploitation What Is the Difference and Why They All Matter. Publications Office. 2023. Accessed August 16, 2024. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2848/289075 European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control., Institute for Social Marketing. University of, Stirling, Scotland., Health Promotion Research Centre at the National University of Ireland Galway. University of Navarra Clinic. Health Communication and Its Role in the Prevention and Control of Communicable Diseases in Europe: Current Evidence, Practice and Future Developments. Publications Office; 2014. Accessed August 16, 2024. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2900/16366 European Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation., European Commission. Directorate General for Communication. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), Science and Technology:Report. Publications Office. 2013. Accessed August 20, 2024. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/45726 McNeal DM, Glasgow RE, Brownson RC, et al. Perspectives of scientists on disseminating research findings to non-research audiences. J Clin Transl Sci. 2020;5(1):e61. 10.1017/cts.2020.563 . Turon H, Wolfenden L, Finch M, et al. Dissemination of public health research to prevent non-communicable diseases: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):757. 10.1186/s12889-023-15622-x . Ravinetto R, Singh JA. Responsible dissemination of health and medical research: some guidance points. BMJ Evid-Based Med. 2023;28(3):144–7. 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-111967 . Nadareishvili I, Bazas T, Petrosillo N, et al. The Medical Community’s Role in Communication Strategies during Health Crises—Perspective from European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Infect Dis Rep. 2023;15(4):370–6. 10.3390/idr15040037 . Cortegiani A, Battaglini D, Amato G, et al. Dissemination of clinical and scientific practice through social media: a SIAARTI consensus-based document. J Anesth Analg Crit Care. 2024;4(1):21. 10.1186/s44158-024-00157-3 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Additionalfile1DelphiAnalysisData.xlsx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 11 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 30 Apr, 2025 Reviews received at journal 29 Mar, 2025 Reviews received at journal 21 Mar, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Mar, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Mar, 2025 Reviews received at journal 14 Mar, 2025 Reviews received at journal 13 Mar, 2025 Reviews received at journal 11 Mar, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Mar, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Mar, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Mar, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 02 Mar, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 02 Mar, 2025 Editor invited by journal 12 Dec, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 10 Dec, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 10 Dec, 2024 First submitted to journal 10 Dec, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5615137","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":412396389,"identity":"6bd7f76d-7364-4815-bba3-d70640191ff3","order_by":0,"name":"D. Pantano","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitätsklinikum Münster","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"D.","middleName":"","lastName":"Pantano","suffix":""},{"id":412396390,"identity":"dfb07c03-c272-4430-a6b3-6305b22c46d1","order_by":1,"name":"R. J. Davis","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Verona","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"R.","middleName":"J.","lastName":"Davis","suffix":""},{"id":412396391,"identity":"59e97e2f-5243-4d02-af47-017f26dd2df3","order_by":2,"name":"S. Vitali","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Verona","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"S.","middleName":"","lastName":"Vitali","suffix":""},{"id":412396392,"identity":"ffa0b497-99d9-413f-a154-80649827cbfb","order_by":3,"name":"E. Carrara","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Verona","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"E.","middleName":"","lastName":"Carrara","suffix":""},{"id":412396393,"identity":"9bc273aa-0ad2-4f09-9563-e4ab178997dd","order_by":4,"name":"A. Gorska","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Verona","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"A.","middleName":"","lastName":"Gorska","suffix":""},{"id":412396395,"identity":"2bd5f3e3-f611-47be-9da6-50775b54f2d3","order_by":5,"name":"L. Carra","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zadig","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"L.","middleName":"","lastName":"Carra","suffix":""},{"id":412396397,"identity":"8832011f-7985-4754-8dee-7e1b184a2668","order_by":6,"name":"H. G.M. Niesters","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"H.","middleName":"G.M.","lastName":"Niesters","suffix":""},{"id":412396399,"identity":"b35e3b7f-2a22-4bbf-94be-7fb65e51c17d","order_by":7,"name":"A. Agodi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Catania","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"A.","middleName":"","lastName":"Agodi","suffix":""},{"id":412396400,"identity":"e7cefbe5-5340-4d9a-a16c-3d6c7255a00d","order_by":8,"name":"E. F. Kochs","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Technische Universität München","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"E.","middleName":"F.","lastName":"Kochs","suffix":""},{"id":412396403,"identity":"bd8be506-4527-41c5-8b94-46de9d076c82","order_by":9,"name":"P. Niedźwiedzka-Rystwej","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Szczecin","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"P.","middleName":"","lastName":"Niedźwiedzka-Rystwej","suffix":""},{"id":412396405,"identity":"65f7e895-c104-4ed5-8c43-9942025be31a","order_by":10,"name":"T. G. Krause","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Statens Serum Institut","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"T.","middleName":"G.","lastName":"Krause","suffix":""},{"id":412396406,"identity":"e11a80b0-290d-4784-9fa7-0f33022efe7b","order_by":11,"name":"D. Jahn","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Braunschweig University of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"D.","middleName":"","lastName":"Jahn","suffix":""},{"id":412396407,"identity":"55f3340e-914a-422b-8bab-1fbf44fd9c3a","order_by":12,"name":"E. Tacconelli","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Verona","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"E.","middleName":"","lastName":"Tacconelli","suffix":""},{"id":412396409,"identity":"029ff042-f6d6-4f06-a992-7c27489c00ee","order_by":13,"name":"A. W. Friedrich","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Universitätsklinikum Münster","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"A.","middleName":"W.","lastName":"Friedrich","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-12-10 09:23:42","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5615137/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5615137/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":76286128,"identity":"8b1d0d3b-7d72-4215-9f0a-37f7700d1a86","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-14 11:20:53","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":130710,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThis flowchart illustrates the key stages of the COVID-19 Global Guidance Group (CGGG) evaluation process within the ORCHESTRA project. The process includes two Delphi-based rounds of expert scoring, followed by the analysis of results and dissemination of high-scoring publications. The chart highlights key milestones from the initial kick-off meeting in March 2023 to the final targeted dissemination of the project's scientific results.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5615137/v1/93ed0afcdc4c0513a800f243.jpg"},{"id":76287243,"identity":"83756081-0f4d-44b4-ab96-8ee044cdc379","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-14 11:28:52","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":104385,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCumulative citation trend of selected ORCHESTRA publications from April 2022 to September 2024, illustrating the rapid citation uptake of key papers within months of their release.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5615137/v1/8c2de14002b6d854fe848095.jpg"},{"id":76287596,"identity":"137d3857-2c51-426e-9afe-5b26977a2bc9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-14 11:36:52","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1509798,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5615137/v1/507aa4a2-1d99-432f-b2ad-1f2d49f61990.pdf"},{"id":76286109,"identity":"28b2245d-28d0-4357-a811-a720d496c43b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-14 11:20:52","extension":"xlsx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":14150,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Additionalfile1DelphiAnalysisData.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5615137/v1/f3e4071d6684e6fde5140991.xlsx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Innovative methods for dissemination of research results during a Pandemic: A Game- Changing Approach in the ORCHESTRA project","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe COVID-19 pandemic saw an unprecedented volume of publications across a range of scientific disciplines addressing all aspects of the disease \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The urgent need for evidence prioritized the speed of publications but led to claims of flaws in the peer review process and questions regarding the methodological quality of published COVID-19 literature \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Moreover, the volume of information in general, coupled with the multitude of communication tools and platforms, made it difficult for the general public to navigate the emerging evidence and to distinguish scientific evidence from misinformation \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Retraction rates for COVID-19 related publications were exceptionally high and according to Retraction Watch, to date over 400 COVID-19 related publications have been retracted \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. This confusion undermined public health guidance concerning adherence to and acceptance of mitigation and prevention measures such as wearing facemasks, physical distancing and vaccination \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ORCHESTRA project (Connecting European international cohorts to increase common and effective response to SARS-CoV2 Pandemic, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://orchestra-cohort.eu/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://orchestra-cohort.eu/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) was funded by the European Union (EU) Horizon2020 Research and Innovation Programme to create a pan-European cohort to collect data in four cohort categories (SARS-CoV-2 infected patients, vulnerable populations, general population, and healthcare workers). The main objective of the project was to provide much-needed data to support the development of evidence-based recommendations on the control and management of the pandemic in terms of treatment, vaccine efficacy, and long-term consequences of COVID-19. The project was implemented over a four-year period and produced more than 110 peer-reviewed scientific works (average impact factor: 8.7, range 1\u0026ndash;39; more than 400 citations collected in 26 months). Early on in the project, it became evident that the ORCHESTRA data could contribute significantly to the debate surrounding prevention and treatment of COVID-19, especially in terms of the efficacy of vaccines and utility of booster doses \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR9 CR10 CR11 CR12 CR13 CR14 CR15 CR16 CR17 CR18\" citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e and to the emerging body of literature concerning the long-term sequelae of COVID-19 which became known as Long-COVID or Post-COVID Syndrome (PCS) \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR21\" citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. For this reason, the ORCHESTRA coordination team prioritized the dissemination strategy from the outset.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe definition of \u0026ldquo;dissemination\u0026rdquo; in literature is quite broad and varies according to the process or outcome \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. Communication, dissemination, and exploitation of results deriving from the EU Research and Innovation Programme (Horizon2020, HorizonEurope) are an obligation of the Grant Agreement signed between the European Commission and the project consortium implementing the research project. A distinction is made between the three activities where Communication refers to informing citizens, stakeholders, and the media about the project activities and results, Dissemination refers to making knowledge and results publicly available free-of-charge to those who can learn and benefit from the results, such as scientists, industry, public authorities, policymakers, civil society, and Exploitation refers to making concrete use of results for commercial, societal and political purposes \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) defines health communication as \u0026lsquo;the study and use of communication strategies to inform and influence individual and community decisions that enhance health\u0026rsquo; and has underlined the importance of health communication in the prevention and control of communicable diseases \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the communication challenges as highlighted above, the ORCHESTRA project recognized the need for an innovative dissemination approach, leading to the establishment of the COVID-19 Global Guidance Group (CGGG). This external expert evaluation mechanism, unique to the ORCHESTRA project, engaged a group of experts from diverse disciplines and different EU regions to independently and rapidly assess the ORCHESTRA scientific publications to support the dissemination process. The CGGG's mandate included evaluating the relevance, completeness, and generalizability of scientific findings in the publications, with the objective of identifying and prioritizing results of greatest potential interest to the project stakeholders. Through a Delphi-based evaluation process, experts provided nuanced ratings and qualitative feedback on a selection of ORCHESTRA manuscripts ensuring objectivity and impartiality. On the basis of the evaluation, infographics, video abstracts, press releases were developed for the top scoring publications and dedicated presentations on the selected publications were organized for the scientific community.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis paper delineates the methodology for setting up and implementing the CGGG and assesses the advantages and limitations of adopting this methodology in other scientific research projects, particularly during a public health crisis or pandemic situation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the ORCHESTRA project, dissemination was understood according to the broad definition provided by the European Research Executive Agency. This definition views dissemination as the process of making knowledge and research results publicly accessible, free of charge, so that anyone who can learn from and benefit from these results may do so. This approach was applied within the context of health communication, aligning with the definition from the ECDC, which emphasizes using communication strategies to inform and influence individual and community decisions to improve health.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe CGGG was created to evaluate the scientific outputs of ORCHESTRA regarding their relevance, completeness, and generalizability to different geographic/socio-economic location settings and classification of information according to the target audience (e.g., the general public, the scientific community, and policymakers).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe selection of experts for the CGGG prioritized scientific expertise, aiming to ensure broad representation from diverse fields such as patient advocacy, microbiology, virology, and public health. This diverse expertise was crucial not only for evaluating the relevance of scientific findings but also for ensuring that the CGGG\u0026apos;s assessments would be comprehensive and multidisciplinary. With this carefully selected panel, the CGGG was well-equipped to conduct a thorough evaluation of the ORCHESTRA project\u0026apos;s publications. In addition, practical factors that are common in assembling high-level advisory groups were also considered as follows:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExpertise and Recognition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eindividuals who were widely recognized as leaders in their respective fields were contacted, ensuring that the CGGG would benefit from deep and current knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability and Commitment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003egiven the urgent nature of the COVID-19 pandemic and the importance of the ORCHESTRA project, only experts who were likely to be able to commit time to this initiative were approached.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndependent and critical overview\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eonly experts that had no interdependence to the main project partners were contacted so as to ensure independence. As the experts were also involved in other COVID-19 related research activities, they presumably had a critical overview of ORCHESTRA activities and outputs as well as the context of other publications on the topic.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProfessional Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eexisting professional networks were leveraged to identify and approach suitable candidates, so as to assemble the group quickly and ensure an ease of collaboration given the pre-existing relationship.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDiversity of Perspectives\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eexperts from various geographic regions and institutional and professional backgrounds were contacted so as to ensure a diversity of perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrevious Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ewhere possible, experts with previous experience in similar advisory roles were contacted so as to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the CGGG.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis approach, combining formal criteria with practical considerations, allowed the rapid set-up of a group of top-tier experts capable of meeting the challenging demands of the ORCHESTRA project during a global health crisis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFollowing an introductory meeting to outline the mandate and planned activities, the CGGG conducted two rounds of evaluation (May 2023 and September 2024). Each expert completed an individual evaluation questionnaire in an Excel table, scoring a selection of manuscripts from the ORCHESTRA project based on their scientific relevance. Manuscripts were selected for evaluation based on: (1) expected scientific relevance, as determined by the ORCHESTRA coordinating group, and (2) recommendations of the top three publications from each ORCHESTRA Work Package. This process produced a core list of 10\u0026ndash;15 manuscripts, which the CGGG scored in depth. To provide a visual summary of the evaluation process, Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e below outlines the main steps and timeline of the CGGG evaluations across two rounds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003eThis flowchart illustrates the key stages of the COVID-19 Global Guidance Group (CGGG) evaluation process within the ORCHESTRA project. The process includes two Delphi-based rounds of expert scoring, followed by the analysis of results and dissemination of high-scoring publications. The chart highlights key milestones from the initial kick-off meeting in March 2023 to the final targeted dissemination of the project\u0026apos;s scientific results.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to the core list, experts provided general feedback and observations on a broader list of ORCHESTRA manuscripts in a separate Excel sheet (available at \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ewww.orchestra-cohort.eu\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). The status of each manuscript (published, pre-print, or submitted) was indicated in the evaluation form.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe CGGG evaluations used a Delphi-based method, where experts scored each manuscript on a scale of 1 to 4 across four categories: Relevance to the Scientific Field, Clinical Relevance, Relevance to the General Public, and Relevance to Policymakers. Scores of 1 indicated low relevance, while scores of 4 indicated very high relevance. In addition, experts provided qualitative comments to explain their scores, adding context and suggestions to guide dissemination efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e provides a simplified version of the Excel form used for evaluations, illustrating the categories and scoring range.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThis table outlines the format used by CGGG experts to evaluate selected ORCHESTRA project publications. Publications were scored on a scale of 1 to 4 in four key areas: Clinical Relevance, Relevance to Experts, Accessibility to the General Public, and Utility for Policymakers, where 1 indicates low relevance and 4 indicates very high relevance. Experts also provided qualitative comments to support their scores, offering additional context and guidance.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePublication Title\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClinical Relevance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRelevance to Experts\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRelevance to the\u0026nbsp;General Public\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRelevance to Policymakers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComments\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExample Publication 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore: 1\u0026ndash;4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore: 1\u0026ndash;4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore: 1\u0026ndash;4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore: 1\u0026ndash;4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQualitative feedback on impact and key insights.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExample Publication 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore: 1\u0026ndash;4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore: 1\u0026ndash;4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore: 1\u0026ndash;4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore: 1\u0026ndash;4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAdditional comments from evaluator.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn the basis of the results of the evaluation, the ORCHESTRA team coordination team prioritized the top scoring publications for dissemination. To this end, a dedicated scientific communications company was engaged for the development of visual abstracts and infographics to be showcased on the ORCHESTRA website, with clear and accessible messages targeting the general public. Moreover, the selected publications were presented at key scientific events targeting the Scientific Community and policy makers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile the CGGG\u0026apos;s methodology does not aim to re-evaluate the scientific validity of already peer-reviewed outputs, it serves a complementary role by enhancing the effectiveness of dissemination strategies. By focusing on the relevance and communication of findings, the CGGG aimed to ensure that critical information reached the appropriate audiences efficiently. Additionally, it provided in-progress feedback to authors during the course of a multi-year project, allowing them to align their efforts with goals that are not only relevant to the scientific community but also focused on the interests of the general public and policymakers.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eExperts' Evaluations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis section provides a comprehensive overview of the CGGG's evaluations of ORCHESTRA publications across two rounds of assessment. It highlights the publications that received the highest scores overall and in specific categories, reflecting their perceived impact and relevance to different stakeholders. These evaluations offer valuable insights into the most significant contributions of the ORCHESTRA project, as judged by our panel of experts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the \u003cb\u003efirst round\u003c/b\u003e, the two publications with the highest cumulative scores were: Porru \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2022: \u003cem\u003eSARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infections: Incidence and Risk Factors in a Large European Multicentric Cohort of Health Workers\u003c/em\u003e, and Di Chiara \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2022: \u003cem\u003eLong-term Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2 Infection Among Children and Adults After Mild Infection.\u003c/em\u003e Porru \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e received high overall scores due to its clinical relevance and interest to policymakers, whereas Di Chiara \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022 demonstrated a significant impact in terms of relevance to the public and policymakers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the evaluations by category, for the category \u003cb\u003eRelevance to Experts\u003c/b\u003e, Tacconelli \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2022: \u003cem\u003eChallenges of data sharing in European Covid-19 projects: A learning opportunity for advancing pandemic preparedness and response\u003c/em\u003e received the highest scores in this category, highlighting the importance of data sharing at the European level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the category \u003cb\u003eClinical Relevance\u003c/b\u003e, Righi \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2022: \u003cem\u003eDeterminants of Persistence of Symptoms and Impact on Physical and Mental Wellbeing in Long-COVID: A Prospective Cohort Study\u003c/em\u003e was recognized as particularly relevant from a clinical perspective, especially regarding the understanding of the evolving condition of PCS.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the category \u003cb\u003eRelevance to the General Public\u003c/b\u003e, Collatuzzo \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2022: \u003cem\u003eDeterminants of Anti-S Immune Response at 9 Months after COVID-19 Vaccination in a Multicentric European Cohort of Healthcare Workers-ORCHESTRA Project\u003c/em\u003e was highly appreciated for its ability to communicate important findings to a non-expert audience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor the category \u003cb\u003eRelevance to Policymakers\u003c/b\u003e, Tacconelli \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 and Porru \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 were deemed particularly useful for policymakers, providing practical guidelines and recommendations for future pandemic preparedness and response.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the \u003cb\u003esecond round\u003c/b\u003e, the two publications with the highest cumulative scores were: Chenane \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2023: \u003cem\u003eHigh sera levels of SARS-CoV-2 N antigen are associated with death in hospitalised COVID-19 patients\u003c/em\u003e and Gupta \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2023: \u003cem\u003eHost immunological responses facilitate development of SARS-CoV-2 mutations in patients receiving monoclonal antibody treatments\u003c/em\u003e. The former stood out for its clinical impact, particularly in improving our understanding of the relationship between SARS-CoV-2 N antigen levels and mortality in hospitalized patients. The latter received high scores for its relevance to the scientific community, offering crucial insights into how host immune responses can facilitate the development of viral mutations in patients receiving monoclonal antibody treatments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the evaluations by category, for the category \u003cb\u003eRelevance to Experts\u003c/b\u003e, Gupta \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2023: \u003cem\u003eHost immunological responses facilitate development of SARS-CoV-2 mutations in patients receiving monoclonal antibody treatments\u003c/em\u003e and Leomanni \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2023: \u003cem\u003eDeterminants of Anti-S Immune Response at 12 Months after SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in a Multicentric European Cohort of Healthcare Workers-ORCHESTRA Project\u003c/em\u003e, received the highest scores. Gupta \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. was highlighted for its contribution to ongoing scientific research, offering crucial insights into how immune responses can drive viral evolution in patients receiving specific treatments, which is of particular relevance to virologists and immunologists. Leomanni \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2023, analyzed the persistence of anti-S antibodies in healthcare workers up to 12 months post-vaccination, emphasizing the impact of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccine type on antibody durability. This study offers valuable insights into immunity trends, which can directly aid public health policy in refining booster dose schedules and vaccination strategies in healthcare settings. For the category \u003cb\u003eClinical Relevance\u003c/b\u003e, both Chenane \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2023 and Gupta \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2023 achieved the highest scores. These studies made significant contributions to understanding the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients, with Chenane \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e focusing on the correlation between N antigen levels and patient mortality, and Gupta \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e shedding light on how treatments can influence the mutation of the virus. For the category \u003cb\u003eRelevance to the General Public\u003c/b\u003e, Tsurkalenko \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2024, Rinaldi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022, and Leomanni \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. 2023, were highlighted for their accessible approach in presenting findings relevant to a broad audience. Tsurkalenko \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e provided insights into infection spread and psychological impact at a population level, reassuring diverse groups with data on risk factors. Rinaldi \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e focused on data interoperability, indirectly benefiting the public by enhancing data-sharing frameworks in COVID-19 research. Lastly, Leomanni \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, as already stated, examined vaccine-induced immunity durability, offering valuable information on long-term antibody persistence post-vaccination, which resonates with public interest in vaccine effectiveness over time. For the category \u003cb\u003eRelevance to Policymakers\u003c/b\u003e, Rinaldi \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2022, was recognized for providing crucial insights into data interoperability and standardization. By addressing the integration of COVID-19 data across various studies, the study supports a stronger foundation for data-driven decisions, facilitating policy-making in public health and enhancing pandemic preparedness through a standardized approach. To provide a comprehensive overview, Table\u0026nbsp;2 summarizes CGGG evaluations across rounds, with scores indicating low to very high relevance in different stakeholder categories. \u003cb\u003eNote\u003c/b\u003e: For detailed scores and the complete evaluation data for each publication, please refer to the supplementary Excel file provided as additional material.Table\u0026nbsp;2. This table summarizes the CGGG's evaluations of selected ORCHESTRA project publications, highlighting key findings across two assessment rounds. Expert evaluations are scored numerically, where scores of 1 are considered \"low,\" 2 as \"moderate,\" 3 as \"high,\" and 4 as \"very high.\" The table provides insights into the most impactful research according to stakeholder relevance\u0026mdash;scientific community, clinical field, the general public, and policymakers\u0026mdash;guiding targeted dissemination efforts. Detailed scores and evaluation data for each publication can be found in the supplementary Excel file.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"No\" id=\"Taba\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePublication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYear\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelevance to Experts\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClinical Relevance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelevance to the\u0026nbsp;General Public\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelevance to Policymakers\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall Score\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePorru \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., \"SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infections\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh/Very High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDi Chiara \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., \"Long-term Immune Response to SARS-CoV-2\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTacconelli \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \"Challenges of Data Sharing\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVery High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRighi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., \"Long-COVID Symptoms and Wellbeing\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCollatuzzo \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., \"Anti-S Immune Response\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate/High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eChenane \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, \"SARS-CoV-2 N Antigen and Mortality\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate/High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh/Very High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate/High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGupta \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., \"Host Immune Response and Viral Mutation\"\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh/Very High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLeomanni \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., \u0026ldquo;Determinants of Anti-S Immune Response\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate/High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate/High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTsurkalenko \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., \u0026ldquo;COVID-19 Spread and Immunity in Luxemburg\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate/High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eModerate/High\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRinaldi \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., \u0026ldquo;Data Interoperability and Standardization\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate/High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eVery High\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eHigh\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIt is also noteworthy that all publications evaluated by the CGGG received citations within months of their publication (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e), further underscoring their relevance and importance to the field of COVID-19 research. This highlights these papers' immediate impact on the scientific discourse surrounding the pandemic.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e. \u003cb\u003eCumulative citation trend of selected ORCHESTRA publications from April 2022 to September 2024, illustrating the rapid citation uptake of key papers within months of their release.\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eEvolution of Research Priorities and the Concentration of High-Scoring Publications\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe distribution of top-scoring publications across the first and second rounds highlights the evolving priorities in COVID-19 research. During the early phases of the pandemic, a broad spectrum of topics \u0026ndash; ranging from transmission risks and prevention strategies to foundational insights into vaccine efficacy \u0026ndash; were of critical importance as governments and health organizations sought to mount an effective response. Consequently, the first round included high-scoring publications from diverse fields such as epidemiology, immunology, and public health. Notably, Porru \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2022, on transmission risks among healthcare workers and Di Chiara \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2022, on long-term immune responses underscore the need for foundational research across multiple domains.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the second round, however, research priorities had become more focused. As the pandemic unfolded, the scientific community's attention shifted toward specialized topics, such as the immune response's durability, viral evolution under therapeutic pressure, and the clinical markers associated with severe outcomes. Publications like Chenane \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2023, and Gupta \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2023, reflect this trend, concentrating on the virus's clinical impact and evolution in response to monoclonal antibody treatments. Additionally, Leomanni \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2023, explored determinants of long-term immune response post-vaccination, while Rinaldi \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2022, addressed crucial aspects of data interoperability and standardization, supporting policy decisions through improved data integration. Tsurkalenko \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2024, expanded the scope by examining immunity trends and the psychosocial impacts of COVID-19 on the population in Luxembourg.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis progression from broad foundational studies to more focused, clinically oriented research illustrates the natural adaptation of scientific priorities to meet emerging needs during a prolonged health crisis. Early studies addressed immediate, wide-ranging challenges, while later publications concentrated on advanced clinical management and long-term impacts. This evolution demonstrates how research priorities shift as a pandemic progresses, yielding fewer, more specialized studies that deepen understanding and inform policy decisions in later stages.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTargeted dissemination\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ORCHESTRA scientific coordinating team collaborated closely with a dedicated scientific communications company to develop visual abstracts and infographics for selected publications. However, despite the CGGG's systematic evaluations and prioritization of high-scoring papers, there were delays in producing the planned dissemination materials. This discrepancy highlights the logistical challenges faced in aligning dissemination efforts with the CGGG\u0026rsquo;s recommendations and highlights the broader challenges of managing real time dissemination in a rapidly evolving pandemic context.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite these challenges, some of the top-scoring publications were successfully presented at key scientific meetings, including monthly Cohort Coordination Board (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://cohortcoordinationboard.eu/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://cohortcoordinationboard.eu/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) meetings and partner events with other EU projects, directly reaching other researchers and key stakeholders such as ECDC, EMA, HADEA, and the EC RTD.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eExpert Feedback and Comparative Analysis\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to numerical evaluations, the CGGG provided qualitative feedback on the ORCHESTRA publications, offering a deeper understanding of the strengths of the research outputs and areas for potential improvement or further investigation. This feedback was collected across two rounds of evaluations, revealing both consistent themes and evolving priorities, which guided future research directions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAcross both rounds, the \u003cb\u003eimportance of structured information sharing\u003c/b\u003e was a key issue emphasized by the experts, particularly in relation to pandemic preparedness and response. Publications such as Tacconelli \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2022, consistently emphasized as crucial for improving data-sharing practices across Europe, underscored this need. Additionally, Rinaldi \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 contributed significantly by addressing data interoperability, a topic essential for aligning research efforts and optimizing pandemic response.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eLong-COVID\u003c/b\u003e remained a prominent theme. In the first round, experts pointed to the necessity of comprehensive research in this area, noting the gaps in understanding the long-term effects of the condition. This focus intensified in the second round, where extended follow-up periods were recommended to provide a clearer picture of Long-COVID\u0026rsquo;s prolonged impact. Studies like Righi \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2023, and Di Chiara \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2022, were specifically recognized for contributing to this evolving body of knowledge.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePublic engagement gained prominence throughout the evaluations, with experts in the second round advocating for improved accessibility of research findings to non-specialist audiences. They recommended visual abstracts and infographics to broaden the communication strategy. This recommendation represented a shift from the initial focus on dissemination to policymakers and the scientific community. Tsurkalenko \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2024, with its focus on immunity trends and psychosocial effects, exemplified this direction by addressing public awareness and the impact of COVID-19 on diverse population segments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, there was a sustained call for structured policy recommendations drawn from the research findings. Specific areas such as vaccination efficacy, household transmission risks, and COVID-19\u0026rsquo;s long-term management were highlighted as critical to guiding future public health strategies. Publications like Leomanni \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2023, provided essential insights for informing policy on vaccination and booster strategies, while Gupta \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2023, and Chenane \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2023, offered key data on clinical management and viral mutation, emphasizing the importance of adapting treatment protocols to the virus\u0026rsquo;s evolving behavior.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn summary, the expert feedback provided throughout the two evaluation rounds highlighted the need for improved information sharing, deeper research on Long-COVID, enhanced public engagement, and more concrete policy recommendations. These insights reflect the evolving nature of scientific inquiry and the crucial role that targeted dissemination plays in ensuring that research findings reach the appropriate audiences in a timely and effective manner.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted significant challenges in the effective dissemination of scientific information. Despite the interest among the general public in science and technology, research has shown that citizens do not necessarily feel informed about developments in these areas \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In response to this lack of engagement, as outlined above, dissemination activities are now a formal requirement of many research funding agencies \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. However, evidence-based guidance to inform dissemination activities in research is limited \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTraditionally, full publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals have represented the main channel for the dissemination of results and a benchmark for excellence \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. In support of this practice, in the EU Research and Innovation Programme, there is an obligation to publish in open access (free of charge online access for any user). However, the COVID-19 pandemic saw an unprecedented rise of pre-prints with shorter and faster review processes and their propagation on online media platforms \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experience of the CGGG within the ORCHESTRA project offers valuable insights into addressing these challenges:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eIndependent evaluation\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe CGGG provided an external assessment of scientific publications, offering a multidisciplinary perspective on the relevance and potential impact of research findings. This approach responds to the medical community's call for the establishment of independent advisory bodies providing evidence-based advice \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eTargeted dissemination\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe CGGG's analysis allowed for the identification of the most relevant publications for different stakeholders, facilitating more targeted and effective dissemination. This is particularly important considering the variety of communication channels available, from traditional scientific journals to social media, that are becoming an increasingly popular channel for scientific dissemination, adopting tools such as infographics and blogs which are considered as being more accessible to a non-research audience \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eBalancing speed and quality\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eDuring the pandemic, there was an unprecedented rise in preprints, with shorter and faster review processes \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e. The CGGG offers a mechanism to assess the quality and relevance of these rapid publications, helping to balance the need for timely information with the importance of scientific rigor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eAdaptability\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the CGGG conducted evaluations in two phases of the project, the pandemic experience suggests that it might be useful to increase the frequency of these assessments to reflect the rapidly evolving epidemiological situation \u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eTransparency and multidisciplinarity\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe CGGG's approach, with transparent expert selection and a multidisciplinary panel, helps address potential conflicts of interest and biases in evaluation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Limitations","content":"\u003cp\u003eWhile the CGGG approach offers several advantages, it is important to acknowledge its limitations. First, the composition of the expert panel could introduce biases, as the perspectives and backgrounds of individual members may influence the evaluations. To mitigate this, regular updates to the panel's composition might be necessary to ensure a balance of diverse viewpoints, especially when dealing with evolving scientific landscapes. Also, the rapid pace of scientific production meant there was a temporal gap between the two rounds of evaluation and the production of the dissemination materials. This could be rectified by more frequent evaluation sessions. Additionally, while the CGGG process was conducted \"in kind\" for the ORCHESTRA project, applying this model to other projects could present challenges if external experts require financial compensation for their work. This would likely pose a significant burden on smaller projects with limited resources. Finally, although the CGGG demonstrated immediate success in enhancing dissemination during the ORCHESTRA project, its long-term impact on improving public understanding of science remains uncertain. Further studies are needed to evaluate the sustainability and broader applicability of this model across different fields and contexts.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eWhile peer-reviewed scientific publications remain a fundamental pillar of the dissemination process, the experience of the COVID-19 Global Guidance Group (CGGG) within the ORCHESTRA project has highlighted the value of an external expert evaluation mechanism in enhancing scientific dissemination during a global health crisis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe CGGG model offers several key advantages, including an independent and multidisciplinary evaluation of research, more targeted and effective dissemination of scientific results, greater balance between the need for speed of evidence production and quality in scientific communication; and flexibility to adapt to rapidly evolving situations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research projects could consider integrating similar expert mechanisms although further research is necessary to assess the long-term effectiveness of this model and to explore how it can be implemented efficiently across various research contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn an era where timely and accurate scientific communication is critical, innovative approaches like the CGGG can bridge the gap between scientific knowledge production and its effective dissemination to the public and policymakers. By adopting these or similar mechanisms, the scientific community can contribute meaningfully to public understanding and engagement, ultimately maximizing the societal impact of research.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study did not involve human participants, personal data, or clinical interventions, and therefore, ethical approval and informed consent were not required.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement No 101016167, ORCHESTRA (Connecting European Cohorts to Increase Common and Effective Response to SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors' contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eD. Pantano and R.J. Davis contributed equally to this work and share first authorship. They were responsible for conceptualizing the study, writing the manuscript, and interpreting the results. E. Tacconelli and A.W. Friedrich contributed equally and share senior authorship, providing critical supervision, guidance, and final approval of the manuscript. H.G.M. Niesters, A. Agodi, E.F. Kochs, P. Niedźwiedzka-Rystwej, T.G. Krause, and D. Jahn participated in the COVID-19 Global Guidance Group (CGGG) and conducted the Delphi evaluations of the ORCHESTRA scientific publications. A. Gorska performed the graphical analyses and generated visual materials, including infographics and data visualizations. L. Carra, S. Vitali, and E. Carrara contributed to project coordination and dissemination strategy. They also provided critical feedback and assisted in revising the manuscript to enhance its clarity and coherence. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch4\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h4\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeixeira Da Silva JA, Tsigaris P, Erfanmanesh M. Publishing volumes in major databases related to Covid-19. Scientometrics. 2021;126(1):831\u0026ndash;42. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s11192-020-03675-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11192-020-03675-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChen Q, Allot A, Leaman R, et al. LitCovid in 2022: an information resource for the COVID-19 literature. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023;51(D1):D1512\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/nar/gkac1005\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/nar/gkac1005\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJung RG, Di Santo P, Clifford C, et al. Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):943. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1038/s41467-021-21220-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41467-021-21220-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFraser N, Brierley L, Dey G et al. The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. Dirnagl U, ed. \u003cem\u003ePLOS Biol\u003c/em\u003e. 2021;19(4):e3000959. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLimaye RJ, Sauer M, Ali J, et al. Building trust while influencing online COVID-19 content in the social media world. Lancet Digit Health. 2020;2(6):e277\u0026ndash;8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30084-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/S2589-7500(20)30084-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRetracted Coronavirus. \u003cem\u003e(COVID-19) Papers\u003c/em\u003e. Retraction Watch Accessed October 1, 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://retractionwatch.com/retracted-coronavirus-covid-19-papers/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMalecki KMC, Keating JA, Safdar N. Crisis Communication and Public Perception of COVID-19 Risk in the Era of Social Media. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72(4):697\u0026ndash;702. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/cid/ciaa758\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/cid/ciaa758\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDi Chiara C, Cantarutti A, Raffaella Petrara M, et al. Stronger and durable SARS-CoV-2 immune response to mRNA vaccines in 5\u0026ndash;11 years old children with prior COVID-19. Vaccine. 2024;42(2):263\u0026ndash;70. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.12.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.12.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDe Maria L, Delvecchio G, Sponselli S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Re-Infections and Clinical Characteristics: A Two-Year Retrospective Study in a Large University Hospital Cohort of Vaccinated Healthcare Workers. J Clin Med. 2023;12(21):6800. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/jcm12216800\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/jcm12216800\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeomanni L, Collatuzzo G, Sansone E, et al. Determinants of Anti-S Immune Response at 12 Months after SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination in a Multicentric European Cohort of Healthcare Workers\u0026mdash;ORCHESTRA Project. Vaccines. 2023;11(10):1527. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/vaccines11101527\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/vaccines11101527\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eViol\u0026aacute;n C, Carrasco-Ribelles LA, Collatuzzo G, et al. Multimorbidity and Serological Response to SARS-CoV-2 Nine Months after 1st Vaccine Dose: European Cohort of Healthcare Workers\u0026mdash;Orchestra Project. Vaccines. 2023;11(8):1340. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/vaccines11081340\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/vaccines11081340\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePorru S, Monaco MGL, Spiteri G, et al. Incidence and Determinants of Symptomatic and Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infections After Booster Dose in a Large European Multicentric Cohort of Health Workers-ORCHESTRA Project. J Epidemiol Glob Health. 2023;13(3):577\u0026ndash;88. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1007/s44197-023-00139-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s44197-023-00139-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAzzini AM, Canziani LM, Davis RJ, et al. How European Research Projects Can Support Vaccination Strategies: The Case of the ORCHESTRA Project for SARS-CoV-2. Vaccines. 2023;11(8):1361. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/vaccines11081361\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/vaccines11081361\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMasetti M, Scuppa MF, Aloisio A, et al. Effect of a Fourth Dose of mRNA Vaccine and of Immunosuppression in Preventing SARS-CoV-2 Breakthrough Infections in Heart Transplant Patients. Microorganisms. 2023;11(3):755. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/microorganisms11030755\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/microorganisms11030755\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBonazzetti C, Tazza B, Gibertoni D, et al. Relationship Between Immune Response to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccines and Development of Breakthrough Infection in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: The CONTRAST Cohort. Clin Infect Dis. 2023;76(10):1761\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/cid/ciad016\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/cid/ciad016\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCollatuzzo G, De Palma G, Violante FS, et al. Temporal trends of COVID-19 antibodies in vaccinated healthcare workers undergoing repeated serological sampling: An individual-level analysis within 13 months in the ORCHESTRA cohort. Front Immunol. 2023;13:1079884. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3389/fimmu.2022.1079884\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fimmu.2022.1079884\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiannella M, Huth M, Righi E, et al. Using machine learning to predict antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients: the multicentre ORCHESTRA cohort. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2023;29(8):1084. .e1-1084.e7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVisci G, Zunarelli C, Mansour I, et al. Serological response after SARS-CoV2 vaccination in healthcare workers: a multicenter study. Med Lav Work Environ Health. 2022;113(2):e2022022. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.23749/mdl.v113i2.13017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.23749/mdl.v113i2.13017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCollatuzzo G, Visci G, Violante FS, et al. Determinants of anti-S immune response at 6 months after COVID-19 vaccination in a multicentric European cohort of healthcare workers \u0026ndash; ORCHESTRA project. Front Immunol. 2022;13:986085. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3389/fimmu.2022.986085\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fimmu.2022.986085\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRighi E, Mirandola M, Mazzaferri F, et al. Determinants of persistence of symptoms and impact on physical and mental wellbeing in Long COVID: A prospective cohort study. J Infect. 2022;84(4):566\u0026ndash;72. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.jinf.2022.02.003\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jinf.2022.02.003\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGentilotti E, G\u0026oacute;rska A, Tami A, et al. Clinical phenotypes and quality of life to define post-COVID-19 syndrome: a cluster analysis of the multinational, prospective ORCHESTRA cohort. eClinicalMedicine. 2023;62:102107. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102107\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102107\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCegolon L, Mauro M, Sansone D, et al. A Multi-Center Study Investigating Long COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers from North-Eastern Italy: Prevalence, Risk Factors and the Impact of Pre-Existing Humoral Immunity\u0026mdash;ORCHESTRA Project. Vaccines. 2023;11(12):1769. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/vaccines11121769\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/vaccines11121769\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBaumann AA, Hooley C, Kryzer E, et al. A scoping review of frameworks in empirical studies and a review of dissemination frameworks. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):53. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s13012-022-01225-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s13012-022-01225-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Research Executive Agency. Communication, Dissemination \u0026amp; Exploitation What Is the Difference and Why They All Matter. Publications Office. 2023. Accessed August 16, 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2848/289075\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2848/289075\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control., Institute for Social Marketing. University of, Stirling, Scotland., Health Promotion Research Centre at the National University of Ireland Galway. University of Navarra Clinic. \u003cem\u003eHealth Communication and Its Role in the Prevention and Control of Communicable Diseases in Europe: Current Evidence, Practice and Future Developments.\u003c/em\u003e Publications Office; 2014. Accessed August 16, 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2900/16366\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2900/16366\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEuropean Commission. Directorate General for Research and Innovation., European Commission. Directorate General for Communication. Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI), Science and Technology:Report. Publications Office. 2013. Accessed August 20, 2024. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/45726\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/45726\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcNeal DM, Glasgow RE, Brownson RC, et al. Perspectives of scientists on disseminating research findings to non-research audiences. J Clin Transl Sci. 2020;5(1):e61. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1017/cts.2020.563\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/cts.2020.563\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTuron H, Wolfenden L, Finch M, et al. Dissemination of public health research to prevent non-communicable diseases: a scoping review. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):757. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s12889-023-15622-x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s12889-023-15622-x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRavinetto R, Singh JA. Responsible dissemination of health and medical research: some guidance points. BMJ Evid-Based Med. 2023;28(3):144\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1136/bmjebm-2022-111967\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1136/bmjebm-2022-111967\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNadareishvili I, Bazas T, Petrosillo N, et al. The Medical Community\u0026rsquo;s Role in Communication Strategies during Health Crises\u0026mdash;Perspective from European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Infect Dis Rep. 2023;15(4):370\u0026ndash;6. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.3390/idr15040037\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/idr15040037\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCortegiani A, Battaglini D, Amato G, et al. Dissemination of clinical and scientific practice through social media: a SIAARTI consensus-based document. J Anesth Analg Crit Care. 2024;4(1):21. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s44158-024-00157-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s44158-024-00157-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-public-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"pubh","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Public Health](http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/pubh/default.aspx","title":"BMC Public Health","twitterHandle":"@BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"COVID-19, health communication, scientific dissemination, peer-reviewed publications, general public, scientific community, policy makers","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5615137/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5615137/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEffective communication is crucial during pandemics to mitigate fear and promote acceptance of public health measures. However, the COVID-19 pandemic revealed significant challenges, including an overwhelming volume of scientific information, poor quality control, and a rise in false or misleading data. Peer-reviewed publications often faced criticism for fast-tracked review processes, with pre-prints contributing to an increased retraction rate. These issues undermined public trust and the implementation of evidence-based measures.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Horizon2020 ORCHESTRA project developed the COVID-19 Global Guidance Group (CGGG), an external expert evaluation mechanism, to critically assess scientific publications and ensure the dissemination of accurate and relevant findings. The CGGG employed the Delphi method to systematically achieve expert consensus on the evaluation of research outputs. Findings were tailored for stakeholders such as policymakers, the scientific community, and the general public.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe CGGG evaluated over 100 peer-reviewed publications, achieving an average impact factor of 8.7 and ensuring the dissemination of evidence-based findings. The use of the Delphi method enhanced the rigor of the evaluation process and improved the targeting of communication strategies, addressing gaps in public and scientific engagement during the pandemic.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe ORCHESTRA project\u0026rsquo;s experience highlights the value of external expert evaluation, supported by consensus-building approaches like the Delphi method, in scientific dissemination during crises. Broader adoption of similar mechanisms could improve the integrity and effectiveness of communication strategies, bolstering public trust and evidence-based policymaking in future health emergencies.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Innovative methods for dissemination of research results during a Pandemic: A Game- Changing Approach in the ORCHESTRA project","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-02-14 11:20:47","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5615137/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-09-11T07:08:55+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-04-30T21:04:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-03-30T00:19:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-03-22T01:09:21+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"38941781062840171338495323549705204359","date":"2025-03-19T22:29:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"307179425787141171359063358325550402928","date":"2025-03-15T19:11:30+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-03-14T15:51:44+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-03-13T14:25:53+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-03-11T05:33:10+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"274417180588352423872112758479732529041","date":"2025-03-11T05:08:30+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"231352383087485007547343921178456377273","date":"2025-03-10T03:09:55+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"49917059509120225436744883350754961950","date":"2025-03-03T00:56:27+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"132916971838677660538405416120810828656","date":"2025-03-02T15:22:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-03-02T15:16:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2024-12-12T12:23:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-12-11T03:35:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-12-11T03:34:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Public Health","date":"2024-12-10T09:15:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-public-health","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"pubh","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Public Health](http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/pubh/default.aspx","title":"BMC Public Health","twitterHandle":"@BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"5fd213b6-9733-4883-b6d2-d132283195f1","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 14th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-11-07T17:08:12+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-02-14 11:20:47","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5615137","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5615137","identity":"rs-5615137","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}