Plain Language Summary of Publication articles: helping disseminate published scientific articles to patients

Dormer, Laura; Walker, Joanne

doi:10.2217/fon-2020-0784

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lastly, we found criteria that referred to the characteristics of the Contextual Information category [ 8 , 9 , 15 , 18 , 20 , 22 – 24 , 27 , 38 , 42 , 50 , 52 , 55 , 57 , 59 , 63 , 64 , 67 , 72 , 73 , 75 , 78 , 80 , 84 , 86 – 91 ]: For example, publications included specifications regarding PLS authorship [ 8 , 9 , 38 , 64 , 80 , 87 ], and whether the submission of a PLS is or should be mandatory [ 18 , 75 , 89 ]. Another main contextual subject focused on the writing and publication process: There were specifications of where or how the PLS is or should be published (e.g., open access publishing [see 9 , 80 ]) and some articles included detailed descriptions outlining the writing and publishing process of the PLS [ 52 , 73 , 78 , 84 , 90 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another main contextual subject focused on the writing and publication process: There were specifications of where or how the PLS is or should be published (e.g., open access publishing [see 9 , 80 ]) and some articles included detailed descriptions outlining the writing and publishing process of the PLS [ 52 , 73 , 78 , 84 , 90 ]. Occasionally, recommendations were made to engage patients or members of the public in the PLS creation process [ 73 , 84 , 90 , 91 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plain language summaries (PLSs) have been introduced to communicate research in an understandable way to a nonexpert audience. Guidelines for writing PLSs have been developed and empirical research on PLSs has been conducted, but terminology and research approaches in this comparatively young field vary considerably. This prompted us to review the current state of the art of the theoretical and empirical literature on PLSs. The two main objectives of this review were to develop a conceptual framework for PLS theory, and to synthesize empirical evidence on PLS criteria. We began by searching Web of Science, PubMed, PsycInfo and PSYNDEX (last search 07/2021). In our review, we included empirical investigations of PLSs, reports on PLS development, PLS guidelines, and theoretical articles referring to PLSs. A conceptual framework was developed through content analysis. Empirical studies investigating effects of PLS criteria on defined outcomes were narratively synthesized. We identified 7,714 records, of which 90 articles met the inclusion criteria. All articles were used to develop a conceptual framework for PLSs which comprises 12 categories: six of PLS aims and six of PLS characteristics. Thirty-three articles empirically investigated effects of PLSs on several outcomes, but study designs were too heterogeneous to identify definite criteria for high-quality PLSs. Few studies identified effects of various criteria on accessibility, understanding, knowledge, communication of research, and empowerment. We did not find empirical evidence to support most of the criteria we identified in the PLS writing guidelines. We conclude that although considerable work on establishing and investigating PLSs is available, empirical evidence on criteria for high-quality PLSs remains scarce. The conceptual framework developed in this review may provide a valuable starting point for future guideline developers and PLS researchers.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clarification of document distinctions is provided in Table 1. [2][3][4]12,13,[24][25][26][27] As an example of the differences in readability and target reading ages between lay summaries and PLS, selected excerpts 28,29 showed the readability consensus was 12-14 years old for the lay summaries and 18-19 years old for the PLS (Figure 1, 28 Figure 2 29 ).…”

Section: Document Distinctions and Example Readability Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These are: l Regulatory lay summaries 2 l Publication-associated plain language summaries (PLS) 3 l Standalone plain language summaries of publications (PLSPs). 4 These three different document types each have their own distinct purpose, scope, and audience; however, there is limited clarity regarding the terminology used when referring to these documents.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landscaping the terminology of accessible language document types

Griffiths¹,

Appiah²,

Rosenberg³

et al. 2022

Med Writ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are three main types of accessible language documents that medical writers and medical publications professionals may work on. These are regulatory lay summaries, publication-associated plain language summaries (PLS), and standalone plain language summaries of publications (PLSPs). Although these document types have different purposes and audiences, they are often confused because of the similar names. Here, we outline the main differences between the three document types and present the different names used to refer to lay summaries across 58 pharmaceutical companies, totalling 22 names. We also show examples of the different literacy levels used in lay summaries and publication-associated PLS. Medical publications professionals need to be aware of the differences between these accessible language document types and the importance of being precise when discussing these. Standardisation of terminology could potentially help to avoid confusion.

show abstract

“…An important part of this is ensuring that the output from medical research is available in a format accessible to all. Future Science Group is keen to recognize and support patients, both as contributors and readers [1]. To this end, Future Oncology recently published our first Plain Language Summary of Publication [2], which provides a visually enriched summary of the recently published ENLIVEN study, investigating pexidartinib for tenosynovial giant cell tumor [3].…”

Section: Content Highlights From 2020mentioning

confidence: 99%

Past, Present and Future Oncology: Welcome to Volume 17

Gautier

2021

Future Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Plain Language Summary of Publication articles: helping disseminate published scientific articles to patients

Abstract: Future Science Group (FSG) is keen to recognize and promote the vital role of patients in medical and scientific research, and as such, has introduced a new article type to its collection -the Plain

Cited by 13 publications

References 4 publications

Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research

Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research

Landscaping the terminology of accessible language document types

Past, Present and Future Oncology: Welcome to Volume 17

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About