Dataset Information

Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Journals are trying to make their papers more accessible by creating a variety of research summaries including graphical abstracts, video abstracts, and plain language summaries. It is unknown if individuals with science, science-related, or non-science careers prefer different summaries, which approach is most effective, or even what criteria should be used for judging which approach is most effective. A survey was created to address this gap in our knowledge. Two papers from Nature on similar research topics were chosen, and different kinds of research summaries were created for each one. Questions to measure comprehension of the research, as well as self-evaluation of enjoyment of the summary, perceived understanding after viewing the summary, and the desire for more updates of that summary type were asked to determine the relative merits of each of the summaries. RESULTS:Participants (n = 538) were randomly assigned to one of the summary types. The response of adults with science, science-related, and non-science careers were slightly different, but they show similar trends. All groups performed well on a post-summary test, but participants reported higher perceived understanding when presented with a video or plain language summary (p<0.0025). All groups enjoyed video abstracts the most followed by plain language summaries, and then graphical abstracts and published abstracts. The reported preference for different summary types was generally not correlated to the comprehension of the summaries. Here we show that original abstracts and graphical abstracts are not as successful as video abstracts and plain language summaries at producing comprehension, a feeling of understanding, and enjoyment. Our results indicate the value of relaxing the word counts in the abstract to allow for more plain language or including a plain language summary section along with the abstract.

SUBMITTER: Bredbenner K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6863540 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts.

Bredbenner Kate K Simon Sanford M SM

PloS one 20191119 11

<h4>Background</h4>Journals are trying to make their papers more accessible by creating a variety of research summaries including graphical abstracts, video abstracts, and plain language summaries. It is unknown if individuals with science, science-related, or non-science careers prefer different summaries, which approach is most effective, or even what criteria should be used for judging which approach is most effective. A survey was created to address this gap in our knowledge. Two papers from ...[more]

PMID: 31743342

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCochrane plain language summaries (PLSs) are an important format to present high-quality healthcare evidence to patients with cancer and their families. They should be written in a way everyone can understand, since they serve as a tool in decision-making and present a bridge to overcome the gap between the healthcare users and professionals.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to assess the language characteristics of PLSs of Cochrane systematic reviews of oncology interventions in comparison with corresponding Cochrane scientific abstracts (SAs).MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, we included all Cochrane PLSs and SAs of systematic reviews of oncology interventions available in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We assessed text readability, measured using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index, and the prevalence of words related to different language tones (clout, authenticity, emotions and analytical tones). Two independent assessors categorized the conclusiveness of the efficacy of interventions into nine categories.ResultsThe overall median SMOG index for 275 PLSs was 13.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 12.8-13.3). Readability scores did not differ across Cochrane Review Groups. SAs had a higher readability index than the corresponding PLSs (median = 16.6, 95% CI = 16.4-16.8). Regarding linguistic characteristics, PLSs were shorter than SAs, with less use of analytical tone, but more use of a positive emotional tone and authenticity. Overall, the 'Unclear' category of conclusiveness was the most common among all PLSs. Also, PLSs with 'No evidence' conclusions were the shortest and had the lowest SMOG index.ConclusionPLSs of Cochrane systematic reviews of oncological interventions have low readability and most give unclear conclusions about the efficacy of interventions. PLSs should be simplified so that patients and their families can benefit from appropriate health information on evidence synthesis. Further research is needed into reasons for unclear language to describe evidence from oncology trials.

Project description:BackgroundPlain language summaries (PLSs) are intended for a non-expert audience in order to make health research accessible and understandable to the public. This is important because most research is written with jargon and at a high reading level. However, there is a high degree of variability in the instructions for writing PLSs, which may impede their usefulness as a tool for communicating health research to the public.ObjectiveThe aim of this scoping review was to conduct a detailed analysis of the author instructions for PLSs provided by leading biomedical and health journals.MethodWe screened 534 health journals covering 11 categories selected from the InCites Journal Citation Reports linked to the top 10 non-communicable diseases. We included journals published in English that recommended the inclusion of a PLS (as defined by the National Institute for Health Research) and provided authors with text-based instructions on how it should be written. Two independent reviewers extracted data pertaining to common elements identified in author instructions, such as word count/PLS length, content, structure, purpose, wording to support plain language, and the use of jargon, acronyms and abbreviations. Other aspects of PLSs were recorded, such as the label used (e.g., plain language summary, lay summary, and patient summary), journal publisher, consumer involvement and whether the PLS is optional or mandatory. We recorded the frequency of each element and qualitative details of specific instructions. A consumer representative provided ongoing and iterative feedback on the methods, results, and reporting of this study RESULTS: Despite reviewing 534 journals across 10 non-communicable disease areas and 11 journal categories, we found only 27 (5.1%) contained text-based instructions for PLS. Of the 27 journals included in this review, most (70%) did not require a PLS. Approximately 70% of journals with PLS instructions included advice about the use of jargon, abbreviations, and acronyms. Only one journal recommended the use of a readability tool, however five noted that the reading level of the audience or readability of the PLS should be considered. Author instructions were highly heterogeneous between journals. There was inconsistency regarding the word count/PLS length (e.g., between 100 and 850 words), structure (e.g., paragraphs or bullet points), and varying levels of detail for other elements in the instructions. Although only one journal recommended consumer involvement in the development of PLSs, many recommended authors consult those who are not an expert in their field to review their summary prior to submission.ConclusionThe development of consistent author instructions could enhance the effectiveness and use of PLSs. Such instructions should be developed with consumers to ensure they met the needs of a lay non-expert audience.

Project description:BackgroundOne of the most important formats to disseminate the evidence in health to different populations are Cochrane Plain Language Summaries (PLSs). PLSs should be written in a simplified language, easily understandable and providing clear message for the consumer. The aim of this study was to examine the extent to which PLSs are customized for lay persons, specifically by providing conclusive, comprehensible, and readable messages.MethodsThe study analyzed Cochrane PLSs of interventional studies (N = 4360) in the English language published from 1995 to 2019. We categorized the conclusiveness into one of the following categories: "positive", "positive inconclusive", "no evidence", "no opinion", "negative", "negative inconclusive", "unclear", "equal", "equal inconclusive". Language characteristics were analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) software. The level of readability was measured by SMOG (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook) index, indicating the number of years of education required to read the text. For each PLS, we also collected the following data: Cochrane Review Network, year of publication and number of authors.ResultsMost of the PLSs (80%) did not have a conclusive message. In 53% PLSs there was no concluding opinion about the studied intervention or the conclusion was unclear. The most frequent conclusiveness category was "no opinion" (30%), and its frequency increased over time. The conclusiveness categories were similarly dispersed across Cochrane Networks. PLSs were written in an objective style, with high levels of analytical tone and clout above neutral, but a lower relation to authenticity and tone. The median number of years of non-specific education needed to read the PLSs was 14.9 (IQR 13.8 to 16.1), indicating that the person needs almost 15 years of general education to read the content with ease.ConclusionMost of the Cochrane PLSs provided no concluding opinion or unclear conclusion regarding the effects of analyzed intervention. Analysis of readability indicated that they may be difficult to read for the lay population without medical education. Our results indicate that PLSs may not be so plain, and that the writing of Cochrane PLSs requires more effort. Tools used in this study could improve PLSs and make them better suited for lay audiences.

Project description:There is a need for the authors of research reports to be able to communicate their work clearly and effectively to readers who are not familiar with the research area. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), along with a number of other funding bodies and journals, require researchers to write short lay summaries, often termed plain English summaries (PESs), to make research accessible to the general public. Because many researchers write using technical, specialised language, particularly in scientific reports, writing PESs can be challenging. In this study we looked at how to improve the quality of PESs. We took PESs which had been submitted to the NIHR Journals Library and asked authors to rewrite them using new guidance. We also asked an independent medical writer to edit the summaries. We measured the quality of these three versions (original summary, rewritten summary and edited summary) in two ways. First, we asked a group of people who were not specialists in the subject area to read and rate how easy the summaries were to understand. Secondly, we used a well-known measure called the Flesch reading ease score to assess how easy the PESs were to read. We found that there was no difference in how easy people found the summaries to understand across the three versions. However, the PESs that were rewritten by the authors and that were edited by the independent medical writer were both easier to read than the originals. This shows that PESs can be improved and for organisations who feel that employing an independent writer to edit summaries, providing clear, practical guidance to authors may be a cost-effective alternative.Plain English summaries (PES) or lay summaries are often included as part of research reports and journal articles. These summaries are vital to ensure that research findings are accessible and available to non-specialist audiences, for example patients and members of the public. Writing a PES requires the adoption of a different style than is generally used in a traditional scientific report, and researchers can find this challenging. This study explored two possible ways to improve the quality of PESs in the NIHR Journals Library: 1) Providing enhanced guidance to authors and asking them to rewrite the PES and 2) Employing an independent medical writer to edit the PES.We compared the three versions of the PES (original, author rewritten and independent writer edited) to assess 1) how easy they were to understand and 2) how easy they were to read. In order to establish how easy PESs were to understand, a group of 60 public reviewers read a set of summaries and rated them on a four point scale from "Did not understand" to "Understood all". The Flesch reading ease score was used to measure how easy the summaries were to read.Results indicated no significant difference across the three versions of the PES in terms of ease of understanding. However, both the author rewritten and independent writer edited versions were significantly easier to read than the original. There was no significant difference in ease of reading between these two versions.These findings suggest that employing independent medical writers to edit PESs and providing clear, practical guidance to authors are two ways in which the readability of PESs could be improved. Results have implications for journal editors and publishers seeking to enhance accessibility and availability of research findings.

Project description:BackgroundPeer-reviewed scientific publications and congress abstracts are typically written by scientists for specialist audiences; however, patients and other non-specialists are understandably interested in the potential implications of research and what they may mean for them. Plain language summaries (PLS)-summaries of scientific articles in easy-to-read language-are emerging as a valuable addition to traditional scientific publications. Co-creation of PLS with the intended audience is key to ensuring a successful outcome, but practical guidance on how to achieve this has been lacking.MethodsBuilding on the Patient Engagement (PE) Quality Guidance previously developed by Patient Focused Medicines Development (PFMD), a multi-stakeholder working group (WG) of individuals with patient engagement experience and/or expertise in PLS was established to develop further activity-specific guidance. PLS guidance was developed through a stepwise approach that included several rounds of co-creation, public consultation (two rounds), internal review and a final external review. The iterative development process incorporated input from a wide variety of stakeholders (patient representatives, industry members, publishers, researchers, medical communications agencies, and public officials involved in research bodies). Feedback from each step was consolidated by the WG and used for refining the draft guidance. The final draft was then validated through external consultation.ResultsThe WG comprised 14 stakeholders with relevant experience in PE and/or PLS. The WG developed a set of 15 ethical principles for PLS development. These include the necessity for objective reporting and the absence of any promotional intent, the need for balanced presentation, the importance of audience focus, the need to apply health literacy principles, and the importance of using inclusive and respectful language. The first public consultation yielded 29 responses comprising 478 comments or edits in the shared draft guidance. The second public consultation was an online survey of 14 questions which had 32 respondents. The final 'How-To' Guide reflects feedback received and provides a rational, stepwise breakdown of the development of PLS.ConclusionsThe resulting 'How-To' Guide is a standalone, practical, ready-to-use tool to support multi-stakeholder co-creation of PLS.

Dataset Information

Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts.

Publications

Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets