Value of Developing Plain Language Summaries of Scientific and Clinical Articles: A Survey of Patients and Physicians

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.

Clinical Patient Summaries Not Fit for Purpose: A Study in Urology

We evaluated the comprehensibility of patient summaries provided by urology journals for the general public. The WebFX online tool was used to assess the readability of abstracts and patient summaries by scoring the text according to established readability indices. A total of 266 articles were included and statistical analysis was performed to compare the readability of abstracts and patient summaries, stratified by article type and text type. The results show that patient summaries consistently performed worse than abstracts for all readability metrics, and the readability levels for both abstracts and patient summaries were more advanced than the recommended guidelines on average. This study suggests that patient summaries provided by these urology journals may not be easily understood by the general population, and tools should be developed to help urological researchers improve the accessibility of their work. PATIENT SUMMARY: We checked how easy it is to read and understand patient summaries and abstracts of research articles from four urology journals. We found that the summaries and abstracts were too hard to read. This study shows that we need to make these summaries easier to read for everyone.

Video abstracts are associated with an increase in research reports citations, views and social attention: a cross-sectional study

Video abstracts have been proposed as a tool to disseminate research through to social networks. However, its association with metrics of research dissemination has not been adequately investigated, particularly in the field of medical research. The aim of this study was to assess the association between video abstracts and citations, views and Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) of research papers. A cross-sectional study of research reports published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) over a 3-year period was conducted. An inverse binomial regression was used to assess factors associated with citations, views and AAS. The model included the presence of video abstracts as well as other independent covariables as potential confounding factors. 500 research reports were included in the analysis and 152 benefited from a video abstract. The median time from publication was 3.0 (2.2 to 3.6) years and 72% were RCTs. Research reports published with a video abstract were associated with an increase in citations (IRR 1.15), although this estimate came with uncertainty ranging from virtually no effect to a worthwhile effect (95% CI 0.98 to 1.35). There were also associated with a worthwhile increase in views (IRR 1.35, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.54) as well as with an increase in AAS (IRR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44). To conclude, video abstracts are associated with a worthwhile increase in the number of views of research reports. They are also associated with an increase in citations and social attention, although the association may be small.

Patients at the Heart of the Scientific Dialogue: An Industry Perspective

Pharmaceutical companies need to regularly communicate to patients all essential information about their medicines, especially data from the research studies that were conducted to evaluate the medicine’s benefits and risks. To do that, companies will need to make sure patients have access to and awareness of relevant information. This can be achieved by ensuring medical information is freely available to the reader, and working with publishers to facilitate open access (free) publications. Companies should also help improve patients’ understanding of medical terminology, offer simplified versions of scientific content, and deliver information through various formats (print versus digital, text versus audio versus video) to address different learning styles and literacy levels. This will empower patients with knowledge and improve shared decision-making. It will also be essential for pharmaceutical companies to involve patients in various stages of medicine development, such as getting their input on how the research studies for investigating these medicines are designed and reported to ensure relevant information to patients are well-captured and clear. This should also go in parallel with providing opportunities to elevate the patient voice through patient-partnered research and authorship on topics particularly relevant to them.

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.

Supporting patient and public partners in writing lay summaries of scientific evidence in healthcare: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Despite growing interest among patient and public partners to engage in writing lay summaries, evidence is scarce regarding the availability of resources to support them. This protocol describes the process of conducting a scoping review to: (1) summarise the source, criteria and characteristics, content, format, intended target audience, patient and public involvement in preparing guidance and development processes in the available guidance for writing lay summaries; (2) contextualise the available guidance to the needs/preferences of patient and public partners and (3) create a patient and public partner-informed output to support their engagement in writing lay summaries.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

A scoping review with an integrated knowledge translation approach will be used to ensure the collaboration between patient/public partners and researchers in all steps of the review. To meet objective 1, the English language evidence within a healthcare context that provides guidance for writing lay summaries will be searched in peer-reviewed publications and grey literature. All screening and extraction steps will be performed independently by two reviewers. Extracted data will be organised by adapting the European Union's principles for summaries of clinical trials for laypersons. For objectives 2 and 3, a consultation exercise will be held with patient and public partners to review and contextualise the findings from objective 1. A directed content analysis will be used to organise the data to the needs of the public audience. Output development will follow based on the results.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval will be obtained for the consultation exercise. Our target audience will be stakeholders who engage or are interested in writing lay summaries. Our dissemination products will include a manuscript, a lay summary and an output to support patient and public partners with writing lay summaries. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. OPEN SCIENCE FRAMEWORK REGISTRATION: osf.io/2dvfg.

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 Participatory Framework for Plain Language Clinical Management Guideline Development

BACKGROUND

Clinical management guidelines (CMGs) are decision support tools for patient care used by professionals, patients, and family caregivers. Since clinical experts develop numerous CMGs, their technical language hinders comprehension and access by nonmedical stakeholders. Additionally, the views of affected individuals and their families are often not incorporated into treatment guidelines. We developed an adequate methodology for addressing the needs and preferences of family and professional stakeholders regarding CMGs, a recently developed protocol for managing congenital disorders of glycosylation (CDG), a family of rare metabolic diseases. We used the CDG community and phosphomannomutase 2 (PMM2)-CDG CMGs as a pilot to test and implement our methodology.

RESULTS

We listened to 89 PMM2-CDG families and 35 professional stakeholders and quantified their CMG-related needs and preferences through an electronic questionnaire. Most families and professionals rated CMGs as relevant (86.5% and 94.3%, respectively), and valuable (84.3% and 94.3%, respectively) in CDG management. The most identified challenges were the lack of CMG awareness (50.6% of families) and the lack of plain language CMG (39.3% of professionals). Concordantly, among families, the most suggested solution was involving them in CMG development (55.1%), while professionals proposed adapting CMGs to include plain language (71.4%). Based on these results, a participatory framework built upon health literacy principles was created to improve CMG comprehension and accessibility. The outputs are six complementary CMG-related resources differentially adapted to the CDG community's needs and preferences, with a plain language PMM2-CDG CMG as the primary outcome. Additionally, the participants established a distribution plan to ensure wider access to all resources.

CONCLUSIONS

This empowering, people-centric methodology accelerates CMG development and accessibility to all stakeholders, ultimately improving the quality of life of individuals living with a specific condition and raising the possibility of application to other clinical guidelines.

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.

Addressing the need for patient-friendly medical communications: adaptation of the 2019 recommendations for the management of MPS VI and MPS IVA

BACKGROUND

Patients are the most important stakeholders in the care of any disease and have an educational need to learn about their condition and the treatment they should receive. Considering this need for patient-focused materials, we present a directed approach for mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) VI and MPS IVA, a pair of rare, inherited diseases that affects multiple organs and parts of the body. Independent guidelines on the treatment of these diseases were recently published, providing evidence- and expertise-driven recommendations to optimize patient management. However, while healthcare providers may have the training and knowledge to understand these guidelines, patients and their caregivers can find the technical content challenging. Hence, we aimed to develop plain language summaries (PLS) of the MPS VI and MPS IVA guidelines with patients as the primary audience.

RESULTS

A review of the guidelines by an expert team identified six domains of information relevant to patients: The multidisciplinary team, regular tests and check-ups, disease-modifying and supportive treatments, general anesthetics, ear-nose-throat/respiratory care, and surgeries. This information was adapted into a series of infographics specific to either MPS VI or MPS IVA, designed to appeal to patients and clearly present information in a concise manner.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of patient-friendly materials, like the infographics we have developed, has the potential to better inform patients and engage them in their care. We issue a "call to arms" to the medical community for the development of similar PLS materials in rare diseases intended to inform and empower patients.

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.)

Improving knowledge and trust in vaccines: A survey-based assessment of the potential of the European Union Clinical Trial Regulation No 536/2014 plain language summary to increase health literacy

The European Clinical Trial Regulation No 536/2014 is the first mandate for a non-technical, publicly disclosed, plain language summary (PLS) of clinical trial results. This easy-to-understand summary has the potential to inform the public about clinical trial results and thereby improve health literacy in vaccines. To investigate the utility of the PLS, we undertook 2 online surveys (July/October 2020) in the United Kingdom, the United States and India. Participants were selected by quota sampling to ensure representation of gender, age and parental status. Those lacking interest in vaccine clinical research were excluded. In survey 1, participants were questioned about their interest in and expectations of vaccine trial results. In survey 2, the perceptions of participants to a range of written communication styles used in publicly available PLSs were evaluated. A total of 66 (13%) and 122 (29%) individuals were excluded solely due to lack of interest in vaccine clinical research in surveys 1 and 2, respectively; 450 respondents (150/country) completed survey 1 and 300 (100/country) completed survey 2. In survey 1, there was a correlation (p < 0.01) between claimed knowledge of and trust in vaccines. Healthcare professionals were the most trusted source for vaccine information, while vaccine companies were ranked relatively low. In survey 2, infographic PLS formats were considered easiest to understand, most engaging and the strongest communicators. Emphasizing the main points of the infographics in the text did not improve comprehension or recall. Most respondents (86%) indicated that they would like to see this type of communication in the future. Overall, this research suggests that the PLS, by optimizing content and format, has a potential to increase health literacy, and thereby, as part of a wider integrated communication strategy, build vaccine knowledge and confidence.

Development of a plain-language guide for discussing breast cancer genetic counseling and testing with patients with limited health literacy

PURPOSE

Due to limited health literacy and resulting ineffective communication between healthcare professionals and patients, not all eligible patients are offered breast cancer genetic counseling and testing. We aimed to develop a plain-language guide to increase effective communication about genetic counseling and testing with breast cancer patients with limited health literacy.

METHODS

Together with oncological healthcare professionals, we drafted a list of jargon words frequently used during (breast) cancer genetic counseling. In a focus group interview with breast cancer counselees with limited health literacy, who had received genetic counseling before, we reformulated these words in plain language. Low-literate individuals, who are not familiar with breast cancer care or genetic counseling, reflected on the draft of the guide. Completeness, acceptability, and perceived usability were tested in an online questionnaire among healthcare professionals.

RESULTS

The result is a plain-language guide for genetic counseling and testing with 33 frequently used jargon words and a reformulation of these words in plain language. Acceptability and perceived usefulness of the guide among healthcare professionals (n = 58) were high.

CONCLUSION

The plain-language guide provides opportunities to facilitate communication about genetic counseling and testing with patients with limited health literacy and could enhance opportunities for patients to make informed decisions to participate in genetic testing. As the intention from healthcare professionals to use the plain-language guide is high, implementation of the guide in a real-life setting seems promising.

Development of a knowledge translation platform for ataxia: Impact on readers and volunteer contributors

BACKGROUND

Dissemination of accurate health research information to patients and families has become increasingly important with the rise of the internet as a means of finding health information. However, the public faces several barriers to accessing research information, including paywalls and technical jargon. One method to bridge this gap between patients, families, and research is using lay summaries. SCAsource is an online knowledge translation platform where peer-reviewed research papers on ataxia are translated into lay summaries. This online platform was launched in September 2018, with the goal of making ataxia research more accessible and understandable to patients and families. A secondary goal is to provide opportunities for ataxia researchers to develop and hone their knowledge translation skills, altogether improving the quality of patient communication in the ataxia community.

AIM

The aim of this study was to measure the impact of SCAsource on its readers and volunteer contributors after one year of activity. This is to ensure SCAsource is meeting its goals of (1) improving access and understanding of ataxia research to lay audiences, and (2) improving knowledge translation skills of volunteer contributors.

METHODS

Two online surveys were launched, one for readers and one for volunteers. Each survey had a combination of multiple-choice, Likert-scale type, and open-ended short-answer questions. Descriptive quantitative analysis was used for respondent characteristics and Likert-type data. A grounded theory coding approach was used to analyze narrative feedback data.

RESULTS

We found that SCAsource has mutually beneficial outcomes for both lay person readers and volunteer contributors. Readers have an increased understanding of ataxia research and access to up-to-date information on recent publications. Volunteers develop knowledge translation skills and have increased confidence in communicating results to lay audiences. Areas of improvement were identified to be incorporated into the platform.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that SCAsource improves access to information and understanding of research to lay audiences, while providing opportunities for researchers to develop knowledge translation skills. This framework can potentially be used by other rare disease organizations to launch and evaluate their own knowledge translation websites.

Where are biomedical research plain-language summaries?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Plain-language summaries (PLS) are being heralded as a tool to improve communication of scientific research to lay audiences and time-poor or nonspecialist healthcare professionals. However, this relies on PLS being intuitively located and accessible. This research investigated the "discoverability" of PLS in biomedical journals.

METHODS

The eLIFE list of journals/organizations that produce PLS was consulted on July 12, 2018, for biomedical journals (based on title). Internet research, primarily focusing on information provided by the journal websites, explored PLS terminology (what do the journals call PLS), requirements (what articles are PLS generated for, who writes/reviews them, and at what stage), and location and sharing mechanisms (where/how the PLS are made available, are they free to access, and are they visible on PubMed).

RESULTS

The methodology identified 10 journals from distinct publishers, plus eLIFE itself (N = 11). Impact factors ranged from 3.768 to 17.581. Nine different terms were used to describe PLS. Most of the journals (8/11) required PLS for at least all research articles. Authors were responsible for writing PLS in 9/11 cases. Seven journals required PLS on article submission; of the other four, one required PLS at revision and three on acceptance. The location/sharing mechanism for PLS varied: within articles, alongside articles (separate tab/link), and/or on separate platforms (eg, social media, dedicated website). PLS were freely available when they were published with articles; however, PLS were only included within conventional abstracts on PubMed for 2/11 journals.

CONCLUSION

Across the few biomedical journals producing PLS, our research suggests there is wide variation in terminology, location, sharing mechanisms, and PubMed visibility. We advocate a more consistent approach to ensure that PLS have appropriate prominence and can be easily found by their intended audiences.

Patient involvement in preparing health research peer-reviewed publications or results summaries: a systematic review and evidence-based recommendations

BACKGROUND

There are increasing calls for patient involvement in sharing health research results, but no evidence-based recommendations to guide such involvement. Our objectives were to: (1) conduct a systematic review of the evidence on patient involvement in results sharing, (2) propose evidence-based recommendations to help maximize benefits and minimize risks of such involvement and (3) conduct this project with patient authors.

METHODS

To avoid research waste, we verified that no systematic reviews were registered or published on this topic. We co-created, with patients, a PRISMA-P-compliant protocol. We included peer-reviewed publications reporting the effects of patient involvement in preparing peer-reviewed publications or results summaries from health research studies. We searched (9/10/2017) MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and secondary information sources (until 11/06/2018). We assessed the risk of bias in eligible publications and extracted data using standardized processes. To evaluate patient involvement in this project, we co-created a Patient Authorship Experience Tool.

RESULTS

All nine eligible publications reported on patient involvement in preparing publications; none on preparing results summaries. Evidence quality was moderate. A qualitative synthesis of evidence indicated the benefits of patient involvement may outweigh the risks. We have proposed 21 evidence-based recommendations to help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks when involving patients as authors of peer-reviewed publications. The recommendations focus on practical actions patient and non-patient authors can take before (10 recommendations), during (7 recommendations) and after (4 recommendations) manuscript development. Using the Patient Authorship Experience Tool, both patient and non-patient authors rated their experience highly.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a systematic review, we have proposed 21 evidence-based recommendations to help maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of involving patients as authors of peer-reviewed publications.

Giving Voice to Clinical Study Participants: Development and Deployment of Sequential Patient Experience Surveys for Global Clinical Studies

Background

Biopharmaceutical companies are piloting patient experience surveys (PES) to help enhance patient satisfaction with clinical studies. However, most PES have been conducted at study close-out, which can hinder recall and responsiveness, and at a limited number of sites, which restricts their applicability to global studies. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility of developing sequential PES, which would be deployed globally, and to provide practical recommendations based on our real-world experience.

Methods

To develop sequential PES (introductory, interim, close-out), we customized a previously developed patient experience close-out survey. Extensive input was gained from multiple stakeholders (e.g., survey experts, patient advisors, psychometricians, clinical trialists, lawyers). To deploy the PES in global studies, we prepared PES-specific ethics committee submissions, training materials (e.g., slides, videos), and PES invitation aids (postcards, digital app reminders).

Results

Developing and deploying sequential PES in global clinical studies was feasible. The 3-part online PES (25 to 37 questions per survey) passed health literacy testing. To facilitate benchmarking, the PES included core questions (including a Net Promoter Score question). The PES gained ethics approval and was deployed globally in 2017–2018 in 12 phase 2 and 3 clinical studies in North America, Europe, and the Asia–Pacific. Based on the real-world insights gained and the challenges encountered, we have made recommendations for PES.

Conclusions

Our practical recommendations on the development and deployment of sequential global PES may assist others to implement PES efficiently and effectively, allowing them to gain feedback from patients globally during clinical studies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s43441-020-00115-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Are plain-language summaries included in published reports of evidence about physiotherapy interventions? Analysis of 4421 randomised trials, systematic reviews and guidelines on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro)

BACKGROUND

A plain-language summary is a short and clearly stated version of a study's results using non-scientific vocabulary that provide many advantages for patients and clinicians in the process of shared decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to investigate the extent to which published reports of physiotherapy interventions provide plain-language summaries. We investigate as the secondary objectives if the available plain-language summaries are at a suitable reading level for a lay person and if inclusion of plain-language summaries in these reports is increasing over time and is associated with trial quality (i.e. PEDro score).

DATA SOURCES

All 4421 randomised controlled trials (RCT), systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines that included plain-language summaries indexed on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of published reports with plain-language summaries, Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL).

RESULTS

The number of published reports with a plain-language summary doubled in the last 6 years. From a total of 34,444 reports indexed on PEDro, only 4421 reports had English plain-language summaries. RCTs with plain-language summaries had higher PEDro scores than RCTs without plain-language summaries (mean difference=0.8 points, 95%CI 0.7 to 0.8). Only 2% of reports were considered at a suitable reading level by the FKGL formula and 0.1% by the FRES formula.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the publication of plain-language summaries is increasing over time, the current number corresponds to only 13% of all published reports. In addition the majority of plain-language summaries are written at an advanced reading level.