How to Put It Plainly? Findings From Two Randomized Controlled Studies on Writing Plain Language Summaries for Psychological Meta-Analyses.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kerwer M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8717946 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Cochrane systematic review Plain language Summaries (CSR PLSs should serve as a tool for the evidence translation to non-medical population. However, the evidence of optimal type of numerical presentation in CSR PLSs is still scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate readers' comprehension and preferences for different presentation of findings, including framing and numerical data, in Cochrane systematic review Plain Language Summaries (CSR PLSs). METHODS:We conducted a parallel randomized trial and a crossover randomized trial at the School of Medicine and family practice offices in Split, Croatia. The participants were students and consumers. We assessed possible differences in comprehension, measured by four questions on PLS content, of CSR PLSs depending on the positive or negative framing of results (n?=?91) (Trial 1) or using percentages or frequencies for the presentation of results (n?=?245) (Trial 2). The outcome measures were comprehension of PLS content, perceived effectiveness of the treatment and readiness to use the treatment (all on 1-10 scales). RESULTS:In Trial 1 we found no difference in readers' perception of the effectiveness of the described treatment, desire that the treatment be offered by their family doctor, readiness to use the treatment, or comprehension when CSR PLS results were presented positively or negatively. In Trial 2 we found no difference in CSR PLS comprehension when results were presented as natural frequencies or percentages (BF10?=?0.62, Bayesian t-test for independent samples). CONCLUSIONS:Numerical presentation and framing direction of results appear to have no significant impact on understanding of messages in CSR PLSs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Protocol registration numbers: Trial 1: NCT03442387; Trial 2: NCT03554252.
| S-EPMC7201737 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Findings from psychological research are usually difficult to interpret for non-experts. Yet, non-experts resort to psychological findings to inform their decisions (e.g., whether to seek a psychotherapeutic treatment or not). Thus, the communication of psychological research to non-expert audiences has received increasing attention over the last years. Plain language summaries (PLS) are abstracts of peer-reviewed journal articles that aim to explain the rationale, methods, findings, and interpretation of a scientific study to non-expert audiences using non-technical language. Unlike media articles or other forms of accessible research summaries, PLS are usually written by the authors of the respective journal article, ensuring that research content is accurately reproduced. In this study, we compared the readability of PLS and corresponding scientific abstracts in a sample of 103 journal articles from two psychological peer-reviewed journals. To assess readability, we calculated four readability indices that quantify text characteristics related to reading comprehension (e.g., word difficulty, sentence length). Analyses of variance revealed that PLS were easier to read than scientific abstracts. This effect emerged in both included journals and across all readability indices. There was only little evidence that this effect differed in magnitude between the included journals. In sum, this study shows that PLS may be an effective instrument for communicating psychological research to non-expert audiences. We discuss future research avenues to increase the quality of PLS and strengthen their role in science communication.
| S-EPMC7117690 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5632836 | biostudies-other
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC6863540 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCochrane, an organization dedicated to the production and dissemination of high-quality evidence on health, endeavors to reach consumers by developing appropriate summary formats of its systematic reviews. However, the optimal type of presentation of evidence to consumers is still unknown.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to investigate consumer preferences for different summary formats of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs), using both qualitative and quantitative approaches.MethodsInitially, we conducted three focus groups with medical students (n = 7), doctors (n = 4), and patients (n = 9) in 2017 to explore their health information search habits and preferences for CSR summary formats. Based on those findings, we conducted a randomized trial with medical students at the University of Split School of Medicine, Croatia, and with patients from three Dalmatian family practices to determine whether they prefer CSR blogshots (n = 115) or CSR plain language summaries (PLSs; n = 123).ResultsParticipants in the focus groups favored brief and explicit CSR summary formats with fewer numbers. Although we found no difference in participants' preferences for a specific summary format in the overall sample, subgroup analysis showed that patients preferred blogshots over PLSs in comparison to medical students (P = 0.003, eta squared effect size η2 = 0.04).ConclusionCSR summaries should be produced in a format that meets the expectations and needs of consumers. Use of blogshots as a summary format could enhance the dissemination of CSRs among patients.Trial registrationThe trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03542201. Registered on May 31st 2018.
| S-EPMC7249676 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9164486 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInternalizing mental illnesses associated with psychological distress are often underdetected. Text-based detection using natural language processing (NLP) methods is increasingly being used to complement conventional detection efforts. However, these approaches often rely on self-disclosure through autobiographical narratives that may not always be possible, especially in the context of the collectivistic Japanese culture.ObjectiveWe propose the use of narrative writing as an alternative resource for mental illness detection in youth. Accordingly, in this study, we investigated the textual characteristics of narratives written by youth with psychological distress; our research focuses on the detection of psychopathological tendencies in written imaginative narratives.MethodsUsing NLP tools such as stylometric measures and lexicon-based sentiment analysis, we examined short narratives from 52 Japanese youth (mean age 19.8 years, SD 3.1) obtained through crowdsourcing. Participants wrote a short narrative introduction to an imagined story before completing a questionnaire to quantify their tendencies toward psychological distress. Based on this score, participants were categorized into higher distress and lower distress groups. The written narratives were then analyzed using NLP tools and examined for between-group differences. Although outside the scope of this study, we also carried out a supplementary analysis of narratives written by adults using the same procedure.ResultsYouth demonstrating higher tendencies toward psychological distress used significantly more positive (happiness-related) words, revealing differences in valence of the narrative content. No other significant differences were observed between the high and low distress groups.ConclusionsYouth with tendencies toward mental illness were found to write more positive stories that contained more happiness-related terms. These results may potentially have widespread implications on psychological distress screening on online platforms, particularly in cultures such as Japan that are not accustomed to self-disclosure. Although the mechanisms that we propose in explaining our results are speculative, we believe that this interpretation paves the way for future research in online surveillance and detection efforts.
| S-EPMC8391726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PDBsum is a web-based database providing a largely pictorial summary of the key information on each macromolecular structure deposited at the Protein Data Bank (PDB). It includes images of the structure, annotated plots of each protein chain's secondary structure, detailed structural analyses generated by the PROMOTIF program, summary PROCHECK results and schematic diagrams of protein-ligand and protein-DNA interactions. RasMol scripts highlight key aspects of the structure, such as the protein's domains, PROSITE patterns and protein-ligand interactions, for interactive viewing in 3D. Numerous links take the user to related sites. PDBsum is updated whenever any new structures are released by the PDB and is freely accessible via http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/bsm/pdbsum.
| S-EPMC29784 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Meta-analysis plays a crucial role in syntheses of quantitative evidence in ecology and biodiversity conservation. The reliability of estimates in meta-analyses strongly depends on unbiased sampling of primary studies. Although earlier studies have explored potential biases in ecological meta-analyses, biases in reported statistical results and associated study characteristics published in different languages have never been tested in environmental sciences. We address this knowledge gap by systematically searching published meta-analyses and comparing effect-size estimates between English- and Japanese-language studies included in existing meta-analyses. Of the 40 published ecological meta-analysis articles authored by those affiliated to Japanese institutions, we find that three meta-analysis articles searched for studies in the two languages and involved sufficient numbers of English- and Japanese-language studies, resulting in four eligible meta-analyses (i.e., four meta-analyses conducted in the three meta-analysis articles). In two of the four, effect sizes differ significantly between the English- and Japanese-language studies included in the meta-analyses, causing considerable changes in overall mean effect sizes and even their direction when Japanese-language studies are excluded. The observed differences in effect sizes are likely attributable to systematic differences in reported statistical results and associated study characteristics, particularly taxa and ecosystems, between English- and Japanese-language studies. Despite being based on a small sample size, our findings suggest that ignoring non-English-language studies may bias outcomes of ecological meta-analyses, due to systematic differences in study characteristics and effect-size estimates between English- and non-English languages. We provide a list of actions that meta-analysts could take in the future to reduce the risk of language bias.
| S-EPMC7381574 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The ability to predict psychiatric readmission would facilitate the development of interventions to reduce this risk, a major driver of psychiatric health-care costs. The symptoms or characteristics of illness course necessary to develop reliable predictors are not available in coded billing data, but may be present in narrative electronic health record (EHR) discharge summaries. We identified a cohort of individuals admitted to a psychiatric inpatient unit between 1994 and 2012 with a principal diagnosis of major depressive disorder, and extracted inpatient psychiatric discharge narrative notes. Using these data, we trained a 75-topic Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model, a form of natural language processing, which identifies groups of words associated with topics discussed in a document collection. The cohort was randomly split to derive a training (70%) and testing (30%) data set, and we trained separate support vector machine models for baseline clinical features alone, baseline features plus common individual words and the above plus topics identified from the 75-topic LDA model. Of 4687 patients with inpatient discharge summaries, 470 were readmitted within 30 days. The 75-topic LDA model included topics linked to psychiatric symptoms (suicide, severe depression, anxiety, trauma, eating/weight and panic) and major depressive disorder comorbidities (infection, postpartum, brain tumor, diarrhea and pulmonary disease). By including LDA topics, prediction of readmission, as measured by area under receiver-operating characteristic curves in the testing data set, was improved from baseline (area under the curve 0.618) to baseline+1000 words (0.682) to baseline+75 topics (0.784). Inclusion of topics derived from narrative notes allows more accurate discrimination of individuals at high risk for psychiatric readmission in this cohort. Topic modeling and related approaches offer the potential to improve prediction using EHRs, if generalizability can be established in other clinical cohorts.
| S-EPMC5315537 | biostudies-literature