Where are biomedical research plain-language summaries?

Publishing clinical trial results in plain language: a clash of ethical principles?

Plain language resources (PLR) are lay summaries of clinical trial results or plain language summaries of publications, in digital/visual/language formats. They aim to provide accurate information in jargon-free, and easy-to-understand language that can meet the health information needs of the general public, especially patients and caregivers. These are typically developed by the study sponsors or investigators, or by national public health bodies, research hospitals, patient organizations, and non-profit organizations. While the usefulness of PLR seems unequivocal, they have never been analyzed from the perspective of ethics. In this commentary, we do so and reflect on whether PLR are categorically advantageous or if they solve certain issues but raise new problems at the same time. Ethical concerns that PLR can potentially address include but are not limited to individual and community level health literacy, patient empowerment and autonomy. We also highlight the ethical issues that PLR may potentially exacerbate, such as fair balanced presentation and interpretation of medical knowledge, positive publication bias, and equitable access to information. PLR are important resources for patients, with promising implications for individual as well as community health. However, they require appropriate oversight and standards to optimize their potential value. Hence, we also highlight recommendations and best practices from our reading of the literature, that aim to minimize these biases.

Why and how to publish aphasia-friendly research summaries

BACKGROUND

A common complaint of people with aphasia and their families is their inability to find information about current aphasia treatment research (Hinckley, Boyle, Lombard & Bartels-Tobin, 2014; Hinckley & El-Khouri, 2021). Plain language summaries, video summaries, and graphical summaries are three ways to disseminate research results that are more accessible to a broader audience. The purpose of this tutorial is to discuss the motivations for disseminating research in understandable ways, and to provide information and resources on how aphasia-friendly dissemination can be done.

METHOD

We report an overview of evidence on the importance of and characteristics of dissemination. Next, we provide specific characteristics and resources for producing plain language summaries, video summaries, and graphical abstracts. Finally, we conducted a systematic search for journals in the area of stroke rehabilitation after consultation with a research librarian. The publication webpages of each journal were inspected to gather information about whether and how the journal published plain language summaries, video summaries, or graphical abstracts. Editors were contacted as needed to complete the information. Sixty journals in stroke rehabilitation were identified, and a total of 43 journals (71%) publish video abstracts, graphical summaries, and/or plain language summaries either independently or through third-party platforms.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings are discussed in the context of the importance of making research consumer-friendly. We offer specific recommendations for aphasia researchers, and future directions for publishing research in ways that will have an impact on the broader public are suggested.

What Author Instructions Do Health Journals Provide for Writing Plain Language Summaries? A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Plain 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.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this scoping review was to conduct a detailed analysis of the author instructions for PLSs provided by leading biomedical and health journals.

METHOD

We 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.

CONCLUSION

The 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.

Improving access to oncology publications for advocates and people with cancer

Journal articles provide reliable and current information about cancer research. This can offer hope to people with cancer and help them make decisions about their care. Here, the authors suggest ways in which different groups may help people with cancer to find, view, and understand articles. For example, journals should make articles free to view if they describe research that could change patient care. Also, clear titles and easy-to-follow summaries or videos may help people to find relevant articles and understand the main findings. It is important to explore ways to best share research with all those whose lives it may affect.

A survey of automated methods for biomedical text simplification

OBJECTIVE

Plain language in medicine has long been advocated as a way to improve patient understanding and engagement. As the field of Natural Language Processing has progressed, increasingly sophisticated methods have been explored for the automatic simplification of existing biomedical text for consumers. We survey the literature in this area with the goals of characterizing approaches and applications, summarizing existing resources, and identifying remaining challenges.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We search English language literature using lists of synonyms for both the task (eg, "text simplification") and the domain (eg, "biomedical"), and searching for all pairs of these synonyms using Google Scholar, Semantic Scholar, PubMed, ACL Anthology, and DBLP. We expand search terms based on results and further include any pertinent papers not in the search results but cited by those that are.

RESULTS

We find 45 papers that we deem relevant to the automatic simplification of biomedical text, with data spanning 7 natural languages. Of these (nonexclusively), 32 describe tools or methods, 13 present data sets or resources, and 9 describe impacts on human comprehension. Of the tools or methods, 22 are chiefly procedural and 10 are chiefly neural.

CONCLUSIONS

Though neural methods hold promise for this task, scarcity of parallel data has led to continued development of procedural methods. Various low-resource mitigations have been proposed to advance neural methods, including paragraph-level and unsupervised models and augmentation of neural models with procedural elements drawing from knowledge bases. However, high-quality parallel data will likely be crucial for developing fully automated biomedical text simplification.

Conclusiveness, linguistic characteristics and readability of Cochrane plain language summaries of intervention reviews: a cross-sectional study

Background

One 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.

Methods

The 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.

Results

Most 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.

Conclusion

Most 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.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01721-7.

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

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.

A practical 'How-To' Guide to plain language summaries (PLS) of peer-reviewed scientific publications: results of a multi-stakeholder initiative utilizing co-creation methodology

BACKGROUND

Peer-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.

METHODS

Building 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.

RESULTS

The 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.

CONCLUSIONS

The resulting 'How-To' Guide is a standalone, practical, ready-to-use tool to support multi-stakeholder co-creation of PLS.

Comparison of innovative communication approaches in nutrition to promote and improve health literacy

The translation of scientific evidence into guidelines and advice is a fundamental aspect of scientific communication within nutrition and dietetics. For communication to be effective for all patients, health literacy (HL) must be considered, i.e. an individual's capacity to obtain, comprehend and utilise information to empower decision-making and promote their own health. HL levels are varied and difficult to judge on an individual basis and have not been quantified, thus not giving a population mean HL competency indication. It has been evidenced that most of the working age population in England cannot comprehend healthcare materials due to complexity, thereby promoting a need for agreed readability thresholds for written healthcare information. A wide range of modalities within dietetics are used to communicate to a varied audience with the primary form written, e.g. journal articles, plain language summaries and leaflets. Audio/visual and digital communications are increasing in dietetic care and welcomed by patients; however, the effectiveness of such approaches has not been studied thoroughly and digital exclusion remains a concern. Communication considering a patient's HL level leads to empowerment which is key to effective management of chronic diseases with a high treatment burden. Therefore; this review will focus on the importance of modalities used to communicate science in nutrition to ensure they are appropriate in relation to Health Literacy.

Plain language summaries of publications of company-sponsored medical research: what key questions do we need to address?

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to gather multi-stakeholder insights on key issues relating to plain language summaries (PLS) of company-sponsored medical research to inform future industry recognized guidelines.

METHODS

We identified diverse stakeholders based on expertise, familiarity with PLS, and geographical location. A Working Group (n = 11) with extensive expertise in PLS developed an initial list of 14 questions relating to PLS, which were shared with stakeholders. We used a modified Delphi approach to prioritize the 10 key questions that were then used to structure stakeholder discussions to collect evidence on the key challenges and opportunities to inform best practice for PLS.

RESULTS

Overall, 29 stakeholders took part in the study, representing different professional sectors and geographies. There was strong alignment among stakeholders on the priority questions for PLS, with high response rates for both surveys (69% and 90%). Moderated online sessions were attended by 27/29 stakeholders and opportunities to improve PLS uptake were highlighted: developing industry-wide PLS guidelines would help define and maintain quality, including having a clear directive for when publications should have a PLS; further advocacy is needed by target audiences to ensure PLS become an established part of company-sponsored research publications; a searchable repository could facilitate discoverability and broad dissemination of PLS to multiple target audiences.

CONCLUSIONS

Key issues identified by stakeholders provide broad insights into the real and perceived barriers relating to PLS uptake. Each emerging theme presents a possible action that could accelerate PLS uptake and facilitate sharing of new medical research with lay audiences.

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

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.)

How to Put It Plainly? Findings From Two Randomized Controlled Studies on Writing Plain Language Summaries for Psychological Meta-Analyses

Plain language summaries (PLS) aim to communicate research findings to laypersons in an easily understandable manner. Despite the societal relevance of making psychological research findings available to the public, our empirical knowledge on how to write PLS of psychology studies is still scarce. In this article, we present two experimental studies investigating six characteristics of PLS for psychological meta-analyses. We specifically focused on approaches for (1) handling technical terms, (2) communicating the quality of evidence by explaining the methodological approach of meta-analyses, (3) explaining how synthesized studies operationalized their research questions, (4) handling statistical terms, (5) structuring PLS, and (6) explaining complex meta-analytic designs. To develop empirically validated guidelines on writing PLS, two randomized controlled studies including large samples stratified for education status, age, and gender (N Study1=2,288 and N Study2=2,211) were conducted. Eight PLS of meta-analyses from different areas of psychology were investigated as study materials. Main outcome variables were user experience (i.e., perceived accessibility, perceived understanding, and perceived empowerment) and knowledge acquisition, as well as understanding and knowledge of the quality of evidence. Overall, our hypotheses were partially confirmed, with our results underlining, among other things, the importance of explaining or replacing content-related technical terms (i.e., theoretical concepts) and indicating the detrimental effects of providing too many details on statistical concepts on user experience. Drawing on these and further findings, we derive five empirically well-founded rules on the lay-friendly communication of meta-analytic research findings in psychology. Implications for PLS authors and future research on PLS are discussed.