Where <i>are</i> biomedical research plain‐language summaries?

FitzGibbon, Hannah; King, Karen Whitehill; Piano, Claudia; Wilk, Carol; Gaskarth, Mary

doi:10.1002/hsr2.175

Cited by 26 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For Cochrane and similar initiatives in other fields (e.g., the German 'Clearing House Unterricht' project for evidence-based teaching methods, see Seidel et al, 2017), meta-analytic or, broadly speaking, systematically reviewed and synthesized findings, commonly serve as a foundation for the provided information. Moving beyond this meta-analytic or systematic review level, lay summaries are now mandatory for clinical trials under a new EU regulation (European Medicines Association, 2019) and commendable initiatives for providing plain language summaries exist in some disciplines, such as the geosciences (Hauck, 2019) or biomedical research (FitzGibbon et al, 2020). Many empirical studies on this type of plain language summary, however, are only based on the technical evaluation of text properties (e.g., Rakedzon et al, 2017).…”

Section: Plain Language Summaries Plain Language Summariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Easily comprehensible summaries of scholarly articles that are provided alongside 'ordinary' scientific abstracts, so-called plain language summaries, can be a powerful tool for communicating research findings to a wider audience (FitzGibbon et al, 2020;Kuehne & Olden, 2015). It has been argued, from a health communication perspective, that they may help individuals to overcome the language barrier that is imposed by the jargon of scholarly articles (Nunn & Pinfield, 2014).…”

Section: Introduction Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Straight From the Scientist’s Mouth—Plain Language Summaries Promote Laypeople’s Comprehension and Knowledge Acquisition When Reading About Individual Research Findings in Psychology

Kerwer

Chasiotis

Stricker

et al. 2021

Collabra: Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Easily comprehensible summaries of scholarly articles that are provided alongside ‘ordinary’ scientific abstracts, so-called plain language summaries, can be a powerful tool for communicating research findings to a wider audience. Using an experimental within-person-design in a preregistered study (N = 166), we showed that the comprehensibility for laypeople was higher for plain language summaries compared to scientific abstracts in a psychological journal and also found that laypeople actually understood the corresponding information more correctly for plain language summaries. Moreover, in line with the easiness effect of science popularization, individuals perceived plain language summaries as more credible and were more confident about their ability to make a decision based on plain language summaries. If and under which circumstances this higher perceived credibility is justified, is discussed together with other practical implications and theoretical implications of our findings. In sum, our research further strengthens arguments for providing plain language summaries of psychological research findings by demonstrating that they actually work in practice.

show abstract

Section: Plain Language Summaries Plain Language Summariesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introduction Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Straight From the Scientist’s Mouth—Plain Language Summaries Promote Laypeople’s Comprehension and Knowledge Acquisition When Reading About Individual Research Findings in Psychology

Kerwer

Chasiotis

Stricker

et al. 2021

Collabra: Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Additionally, in 2017, to increase public access to healthcare information, the nonprofit organization eLife compiled a list of organizations that provide PLSs of published scientific research—including more than 50 medical or scientific journals [ 38 ]. We now estimate that more than 250 medical journals now facilitate the provision of PLSs; however, wide variations still exist in the terms used for defining a PLS, the presentation format, the platforms where they are located (eg, journal website, Figshare, or Kudos), and how the reader may discover them (eg, via a PubMed search) [ 39 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optimizing Readability and Format of Plain Language Summaries for Medical Research Articles: Cross-sectional Survey Study

Silvagnoli¹,

Shepherd²,

Pritchett³

et al. 2022

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Plain language summaries (PLSs) are intended to provide readers with a clear, nontechnical, and easily understandable overview of medical and scientific literature; however, audience preferences for specific PLS formats have yet to be fully explored. Objective This study aims to evaluate the preferred readability level and format for PLSs of medical research articles of different disease states via a web-based survey of audiences of different age groups. Methods Articles describing phase III clinical trials published in top-level, peer-reviewed journals between May 2016 and May 2018 were identified for 3 chronic disease states representing a range of adult patient age groups: (1) psoriasis, a skin disease representative of younger patients; (2) multiple sclerosis (MS), a neurological disease representative of middle-aged patients; and (3) rheumatoid arthritis (RA), a painful joint disease representative of older patients. Four PLSs were developed for each research article, of which 3 were text-only summaries (written with high, medium, and low complexity) and 1 was an infographic. To evaluate each of the 4 PLS formats, a 20-question open survey (specific to one of the 3 diseases) was sent to a representative sample selected via UK-based patient association websites, Twitter, and Facebook patient groups. A weighted-average calculation was applied to respondents’ ranked preferences for each PLS format. Results For all 3 articles, the weighted-average preference scores showed that infographic (psoriasis 2.91, MS 2.71, and RA 2.78) and medium-complexity text-based PLS (reading age 14-17 years, US Grade 9-11; psoriasis 2.90; MS 2.47; RA 2.77) were the two most preferred PLS formats. Conclusions Audience preferences should be accounted for when preparing PLSs to accompany peer-reviewed original research articles. Oversimplified text can be viewed negatively, and graphical summaries or medium-complexity text-based summaries appear to be the most popular. Plain Language Summary Patients and caregivers should have the chance to read about medical research in a format they can understand. However, we do not know much about the formats that people with different illnesses or ages prefer. Researchers wanted to find out more about this. They selected 3 medical articles about illnesses that affect different age groups: psoriasis (younger patients), multiple sclerosis (middle-aged patients), and rheumatoid arthritis (older patients). They created 4 summaries of each article. One was a graphical summary, and the other 3 were words-only summaries of high, medium, and low complexity. Then, the researchers posted surveys on UK patient group websites and Facebook patient groups to ask people what they thought of the summaries. The surveys were taken by 167 people. These people were patients with psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, or rheumatoid arthritis, or their caregivers. Most were women, and about half had a university degree. For each illness, most people preferred the graphical summary. Among the word-only summaries, most people preferred the medium-complexity wording written for a reading age of 14 to 17 years. People felt that the graphical and medium-complexity summaries were clear and concise, while the others used jargon or were too simple. Authors of medical articles should remember these results when writing summaries for patients. More research is needed about the preferences of other people, such as those with other illnesses. (See Multimedia Appendix 1 for the graphical summary of the plain language summary.)

show abstract

“…Use of labels more easily accepted or recognised would also enable search engines to more easily locate lay summaries for users, making lay summaries more useful. (21)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What instructions are available to health researchers for writing lay summaries? A scoping review

Kamper

O’Keeffe

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To better understand the characteristics of, and requirements for, lay summaries by reviewing journals, global health organisations, professional medical associations and multi-disciplinary organisations, consumer advocacy groups and funding bodies. Design Using a scoping review methodology, we searched the websites of each identified data source to determine if they require, suggest, or refer to lay summaries. Two reviewers extracted lay summary writing instructions from eligible data sources from Australia, USA, UK, Canada and New Zealand. Data sources were linked to the top 10 non-communicable diseases. Main Outcome Measures Using an inductive approach, we identified characteristics of lay summaries and lay summary writing instructions and extracted data on these characteristics. These characteristics are lay summary formats, audience, requirements, authorship and labels, and elements of lay summary writing instructions (e.g. word count/length). We also noted who was expected to write the lay summaries, whether they were mandatory or optional, and the terms used for to denote them. Results The websites of 526 data sources were searched. Of these, 124 published or mentioned lay summaries and 108 provided writing instructions. For lay summaries, most were in journals, written by the author of the published paper, and only half were mandatory. Thirty-three distinct labels for a lay summary were identified, the most common being graphical abstract, highlights and key points. From the lay summary writing instructions, the most common elements for written lay summaries referred to: structure (86%), content (80%) and word count/length (74%). The least common elements were readability (3%), use of jargon, acronyms and abbreviations (24%), and wording (29%). The target audience was unclear in 68 of 108 (63.0%) of lay summary instructions. Discussion Although we identified over 100 sources provided instructions for writing lay summaries, very few provided instructions related to readability, use of jargon, acronyms and abbreviations, and wording. Some instructions provided structured formats via subheadings or questions to guide content, but not all. Only half mandated the use of lay summaries. Conclusion For lay summaries to be effective, writing instructions should consider the intended audience, ideally incorporating consumer input into their development. Presently, lay summaries are likely to be inaccessible to many consumers, written at a high reading level, with jargon, acronyms and abbreviations. Ideally, all research articles will have an accompanying lay summary. Mandatory lay summaries, however, are of limited value without clear and thorough instructions to guide authors. Public and patient involvement statement Patients or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of our research study. Protocol and registration We conducted a scoping review using methods outlined in the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews and information in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual for scoping reviews. A protocol for this study was completed prior to data analysis and is on Open Science Framework.

show abstract

Where are biomedical research plain‐language summaries?

Cited by 26 publications

References 9 publications

Straight From the Scientist’s Mouth—Plain Language Summaries Promote Laypeople’s Comprehension and Knowledge Acquisition When Reading About Individual Research Findings in Psychology

Straight From the Scientist’s Mouth—Plain Language Summaries Promote Laypeople’s Comprehension and Knowledge Acquisition When Reading About Individual Research Findings in Psychology

Optimizing Readability and Format of Plain Language Summaries for Medical Research Articles: Cross-sectional Survey Study

What instructions are available to health researchers for writing lay summaries? A scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About