• Dissemination, ethics communication, and participant-facing materials are usually added late

• Reviewers increasingly scrutinise:

  • Public engagement

  • Ethics & participant comprehension

  • AI / digital communication governance

Single point of contact in your project infrastructure for all patient facing comms.

• Dissemination & impact compliance

• Participant-facing communication (trials, cohorts, surveys)

• Ethics documentation & accessibility

• Digital / AI-assisted communication governance

Purpose: To strengthen proposals by demonstrating that communication, dissemination, and participant-facing deliverables will be handled by an experienced, external supplier with a proven track record.

• What this typically includes:

  • Light-touch review of draft work packages (communication, dissemination, ethics-related)

  • Alignment of planned deliverables with realistic production workflows

  • Ensuring deliverables are clearly scoped, feasible, and review-proof

  • Referencing an established portfolio and operational website to support credibility

  Why this matters to evaluators:

  • Signals that communication is not an afterthought

  • Reduces delivery risk for complex or multi-year projects

  • Reassures reviewers that specialist work will not fall to scientific staff

  Scope and limits:

  • Time-limited (typically 3–5 hours per proposal)

  • No unpaid production or open-ended consulting

  • All pre-submission input is conditional on being named or budgeted if the project is funded

Embedded Specialist Support: If a project is funded, communication and participant-facing deliverables are supported through a defined, embedded allocation, integrated into an existing work package.

• Value for the consortium:

  • Communication, dissemination, and ethics deliverables are handled by a specialist team member, not absorbed by scientific staff

  • Outputs are planned and delivered in line with project milestones, reducing last-minute pressure before reviews

  • An experienced external supplier embedded in the team reduces delivery and compliance risk

• How this is typically structured:

  • A small fractional allocation (often 0.1–0.3 FTE) over 36–48 months

  • Budgeted at a proportionate level, comparable to a small number of specialist deliverables per year

  • Clear scope, predictable costs, and low administrative overhead for the consortium

This model provides continuity and accountability, while keeping costs transparent and aligned with project needs.

Typical projects:

• EU collaborative projects (e.g. Horizon Europe)

• National funding schemes (ANR, DFG, NIHR, etc.)

• Multi-year clinical or population studies

• Projects with participant recruitment or public outputs

• Independent science communication specialist experienced with:

  • Clinical trials

  • Publicly funded research

  • Participant information & dissemination

• See bio here.