# Engaging Social Stakeholders in National Asbestos Research for Public Health: An Italian Experience

## TL;DR

This paper discusses how involving social stakeholders in asbestos research in Italy helps improve public health strategies and policies.

## Contribution

The paper presents a structured approach to stakeholder engagement in asbestos research, emphasizing inclusive processes and health equity.

## Key findings

- Social stakeholders highlighted the need to recognize all asbestos-related diseases beyond mesothelioma.
- There is a call for national health surveillance and psychological support for asbestos-affected individuals.
- Structured communication with stakeholders leads to better public health actions and inclusive policies.

## Abstract

Background: Asbestos and its impacts on the population worldwide are threats to the environment and public health, striking both countries that have banned asbestos, such as Italy in 1992, and those that continue its use. In Italy, asbestos‑affected communities have experienced diverse progress in their involvement in prevention and asbestos risk management.

Objectives: Exploring social stakeholders’ engagement in research projects on asbestos health impacts and discussing the benefits of the ongoing SEPRA project (Epidemiological Surveillance, Prevention and Research on Asbestos).

Methods: A structured communication plan was implemented, including the selection of social stakeholders and their engagement during the project’s lifetime; selection of research topics to characterize the participative initiatives and communication modality; and collection and analysis of inputs for enabling impacts.

Findings: Sharing major issues of concern highlighted by social stakeholders, such as the recognition of all asbestos‑related diseases besides mesothelioma and non‑occupational asbestos exposures. The need to implement health surveillance plans in all the regions of the country, including a national plan addressing the psychological support to patients and their families, and to extend social welfare to people affected by occupational and non‑occupational asbestos‑related diseases has been highlighted.

Conclusions: Social stakeholders’ engagement in research activities through structured interactions and trusted relationships allowed us to share information, needs and recommendations for implementing effective actions in public health. Researchers committed to asbestos research at a national scale should closely collaborate with stakeholders through structured communication, considering their diversified fields of experience, critical thinking and inputs. Giving recognition to social stakeholders of their role and expertise and providing them appropriate tools to interact with the relevant authorities and the asbestos‑affected communities are key for effectively advancing in inclusive processes and health equity.