1
|
Pal A, Arnet I, Elger BS, Wangmo T. Practices and Barriers in Developing and Disseminating Plain-Language Resources Reporting Medical Research Information: A Scoping Review. THE PATIENT 2024; 17:493-518. [PMID: 38878237 PMCID: PMC11343906 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00700-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/12/2024] [Indexed: 08/24/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The intent of plain-language resources (PLRs) reporting medical research information is to advance health literacy among the general public and enable them to participate in shared decision-making (SDM). Regulatory mandates coupled with academic and industry initiatives have given rise to an increasing volume of PLRs summarizing medical research information. However, there is significant variability in the quality, format, readability, and dissemination channels for PLRs. In this scoping review, we identify current practices, guidance, and barriers in developing and disseminating PLRs reporting medical research information to the general public including patients and caregivers. We also report on the PLR preferences of these intended audiences. METHODS A literature search of three bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science) and three clinical trial registries (NIH, EMA, ISRCTN registry) was performed. Snowball searches within reference lists of primary articles were added. Articles with PLRs or reporting topics related to PLRs use and development available between January 2017 and June 2023 were identified. Evidence mapping and synthesis were used to make qualitative observations. Identified PLRs were quantitatively assessed, including temporal annual trends, availability by field of medicine, language, and publisher types. RESULTS A total of 9116 PLRs were identified, 9041 from the databases and 75 from clinical trial registries. The final analysis included 6590 PLRs from databases and 72 from registries. Reported barriers to PLR development included ambiguity in guidance, lack of incentives, and concerns of researchers writing for the general public. Available guidance recommendations called for greater dissemination, increased readability, and varied content formats. Patients preferred visual PLRs formats (e.g., videos, comics), which were easy to access on the internet and used short jargon-free text. In some instances, older audiences and more educated readers preferred text-only PLRs. Preferences among the general public were mostly similar to those of patients. Psychology, followed by oncology, showed the highest number of PLRs, predominantly from academia-sponsored research. Text-only PLRs were most commonly available, while graphical, digital, or online formats were less available. Preferred dissemination channels included paywall-free journal websites, indexing on PubMed, third-party websites, via email to research participants, and social media. CONCLUSIONS This scoping review maps current practices, recommendations, and patients' and the general public's preferences for PLR development and dissemination. The results suggest that making PLRs available to a wider audience by improving nomenclature, accessibility, and providing translations may contribute to empowerment and SDM. Minimizing variability among available guidance for PLR development may play an important role in amplifying the value and impact of these resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Avishek Pal
- Institute of Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Bernouillistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.
| | - Isabelle Arnet
- Pharmaceutical Care Research Group, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Bernice Simone Elger
- Institute of Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Bernouillistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland
- University Center of Legal Medicine (CURML), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Tenzin Wangmo
- Institute of Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Bernouillistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wen J, Yi L. Are plain language summaries more readable than scientific abstracts? Evidence from six biomedical and life sciences journals. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE (BRISTOL, ENGLAND) 2024:9636625241252565. [PMID: 38783772 DOI: 10.1177/09636625241252565] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/25/2024]
Abstract
In recent decades, members of the general public have become increasingly reliant on findings of scientific studies for decision-making. However, scientific writing usually features a heavy use of technical language, which may pose challenges for people outside of the scientific community. To alleviate this issue, plain language summaries were introduced to provide a brief summary of scientific papers in clear and accessible language. Despite increasing attention paid to the research of plain language summaries, little is known about whether these summaries are readable for the intended audiences. Based on a large corpus sampled from six biomedical and life sciences journals, the present study examined the readability and jargon use of plain language summaries and scientific abstracts on a technical level. It was found that (1) plain language summaries were more readable than scientific abstracts, (2) the reading grade levels of plain language summaries were moderately correlated with that of scientific abstracts, (3) researchers used less jargon in plain language summaries than in scientific abstracts, and (4) the readability of and the jargon use in both plain language summaries and scientific abstracts exceeded the recommended threshold for the general public. The findings were discussed with possible explanations. Implications for academic writing and scientific communication were offered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ju Wen
- Chengdu Jincheng College, China
| | - Lan Yi
- Zhejiang University, China; Chengdu Jincheng College, China
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Jonas M, Kerwer M, Stoll M, Benz G, Chasiotis A. Equivalent user experience and improved community augmented meta-analyses knowledge for a new version of a Plain Language Summary guideline. PLoS One 2024; 19:e0300675. [PMID: 38722870 PMCID: PMC11081257 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300675] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2023] [Accepted: 03/01/2024] [Indexed: 05/13/2024] Open
Abstract
Plain Language Summaries (PLS) offer a promising solution to make meta-analytic psychological research more accessible for non-experts and laypeople. However, existing writing guidelines for this type of publication are seldom grounded in empirical studies. To address this and to test two versions of a new PLS guideline, we investigated the impact of PLSs of psychological meta-analyses on laypeoples' PLS-related knowledge and their user experience (accessibility, understanding, empowerment). In a preregistered online-study, N = 2,041 German-speaking participants read two PLSs. We varied the inclusion of a disclaimer on PLS authorship, a statement on the causality of effects, additional information on community augmented meta-analyses (CAMA) and the PLS guideline version. Results partially confirmed our preregistered hypotheses: Participants answered knowledge items on CAMA more correctly when a PLS contained additional information on CAMA, and there were no user experience differences between the old and the new guideline versions. Unexpectedly, a priori hypotheses regarding improved knowledge via the use of a disclaimer and a causality statement were not confirmed. Reasons for this, as well as general aspects related to science communication via PLSs aimed at educating laypeople, are discussed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mark Jonas
- Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Trier, Germany
| | - Martin Kerwer
- Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Trier, Germany
| | - Marlene Stoll
- Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Trier, Germany
| | - Gesa Benz
- Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Trier, Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rosman T, Grösser S. Belief updating when confronted with scientific evidence: Examining the role of trust in science. PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING OF SCIENCE (BRISTOL, ENGLAND) 2024; 33:308-324. [PMID: 37937866 PMCID: PMC10958746 DOI: 10.1177/09636625231203538] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2023]
Abstract
In one exploratory study (N = 985) and one preregistered study (N = 1100), we investigated whether trust in science influences belief change on a medico-scientific issue when laypersons are confronted with scientific evidence. Moreover, we tested whether individuals with high trust in science trust science "blindly," meaning that their trust in a scientific claim's source prevents them from adequately evaluating the claim itself. Participants read eight fictitious studies on the efficacy of acupuncture, which were experimentally manipulated regarding direction (evidence favoring acupuncture vs diverging evidence) and quality (high vs low; only Study 2). Acupuncture-related beliefs were measured before and after reading. Moderator and mediator analyses showed that the magnitude of belief change indeed depends on trust in science. Furthermore, we found that people with high trust in science are better able to evaluate the quality of scientific studies, which, in turn, protects them from being influenced by low-quality evidence.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tom Rosman
- Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Germany
| | | |
Collapse
|
5
|
Prakash V, Gore K, Shukla G, Tapiawala P, Thakkar S. Does the format of result presentation and type of conclusion in Cochrane plain language summaries matter? A randomised controlled trial. BMJ Evid Based Med 2024; 29:96-103. [PMID: 37879889 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112433] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/30/2023] [Indexed: 10/27/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study aimed to investigate whether the format and type of conclusion in Cochrane plain language summaries (PLSs) influence readers' perception of treatment benefit and decision-making. DESIGN An online parallel group, three-arm randomised controlled trial was conducted. SETTING The study was conducted online. PARTICIPANTS The participants were physiotherapy students. INTERVENTIONS The participants read two Cochrane PLSs, one with a positive conclusion (strong evidence of benefit) and another with a negative conclusion (strong evidence of non-benefit). Each participant read the results of both reviews presented in one of three formats: (1) numerical, (2) textual or (3) numerical and textual. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was the participants' perception of treatment benefit. RESULTS All three groups of participants perceived the treatment to have positive effects when the Cochrane PLS had a positive conclusion, regardless of the format of presentation (mean perception of treatment benefit score: textual 7.7 (SD 2.3), numerical 7.9 (SD 1.8), numerical and textual 7.7 (SD 1.7), p=0.362). However, when the Cochrane PLS had a negative conclusion, all three groups of participants failed to perceive a negative effect (mean perception of treatment benefit score: textual 5.5 (SD 3.3), numerical 5.6 (SD 2.7), numerical and textual 5.9 (SD 2.8), p=0.019). CONCLUSIONS The format of Cochrane PLSs does not appear to significantly impact physiotherapy students' perception of treatment benefit, understanding of evidence, persuasiveness or confidence in their decision. However, participants' perception of treatment benefit does not align with the conclusion when the Cochrane PLS indicates strong evidence of non-benefit from the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER CTRI/2022/10/046476.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- V Prakash
- Ashok & Rita Patel Institute of Physiotherapy, Charotar University of Science and Technology, Anand, Gujarat, India
| | - Kirti Gore
- Ashok & Rita Patel Institute of Physiotherapy, Charotar University of Science and Technology, Anand, Gujarat, India
| | - Gunjan Shukla
- Ashok & Rita Patel Institute of Physiotherapy, Charotar University of Science and Technology, Anand, Gujarat, India
| | - Priyanshi Tapiawala
- Ashok & Rita Patel Institute of Physiotherapy, Charotar University of Science and Technology, Anand, Gujarat, India
| | - Smit Thakkar
- Ashok & Rita Patel Institute of Physiotherapy, Charotar University of Science and Technology, Anand, Gujarat, India
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bralić N, Mijatović A, Marušić A, Buljan I. Conclusiveness, readability and textual characteristics of plain language summaries from medical and non-medical organizations: a cross-sectional study. Sci Rep 2024; 14:6016. [PMID: 38472285 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-56727-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2023] [Accepted: 03/11/2024] [Indexed: 03/14/2024] Open
Abstract
This cross-sectional study compared plain language summaries (PLSs) from medical and non-medical organizations regarding conclusiveness, readability and textual characteristics. All Cochrane (medical PLSs, n = 8638) and Campbell Collaboration and International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (non-medical PLSs, n = 163) PLSs of latest versions of systematic reviews published until 10 November 2022 were analysed. PLSs were classified into three conclusiveness categories (conclusive, inconclusive and unclear) using a machine learning tool for medical PLSs and by two experts for non-medical PLSs. A higher proportion of non-medical PLSs were conclusive (17.79% vs 8.40%, P < 0.0001), they had higher readability (median number of years of education needed to read the text with ease 15.23 (interquartile range (IQR) 14.35 to 15.96) vs 15.51 (IQR 14.31 to 16.77), P = 0.010), used more words (median 603 (IQR 539.50 to 658.50) vs 345 (IQR 202 to 476), P < 0.001). Language analysis showed that medical PLSs scored higher for disgust and fear, and non-medical PLSs scored higher for positive emotions. The reason for the observed differences between medical and non-medical fields may be attributed to the differences in publication methodologies or disciplinary differences. This approach to analysing PLSs is crucial for enhancing the overall quality of PLSs and knowledge translation to the general public.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nensi Bralić
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2A, 21000, Split, Croatia.
| | - Antonija Mijatović
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2A, 21000, Split, Croatia
| | - Ana Marušić
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Šoltanska 2A, 21000, Split, Croatia
| | - Ivan Buljan
- Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Split, Split, Croatia
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Pal A, Klingmann I, Wangmo T, Elger B. Publishing clinical trial results in plain language: a clash of ethical principles? Curr Med Res Opin 2024; 40:493-503. [PMID: 38354123 DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2024.2308729] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/26/2023] [Accepted: 01/18/2024] [Indexed: 02/16/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Avishek Pal
- Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Ingrid Klingmann
- European Forum for Good Clinical Practice, Brussels, Belgium
- Pharmaplex BV, Brussels, Belgium
| | - Tenzin Wangmo
- Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Bernice Elger
- Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Ruzich E, Ritchie J, Ginchereau Sowell F, Mansur A, Griffiths P, Birkett H, Harman D, Spink J, James D, Reaney M. A powerful partnership: researchers and patients working together to develop a patient-facing summary of clinical trial outcome data. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2024; 31:363-374. [PMID: 37341698 PMCID: PMC10797263 DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocad099] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/21/2023] [Revised: 04/27/2023] [Accepted: 05/31/2023] [Indexed: 06/22/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Availability of easy-to-understand patient-reported outcome (PRO) trial data may help individuals make more informed healthcare decisions. Easily interpretable, patient-centric PRO data summaries and visualizations are therefore needed. This three-stage study explored graphical format preferences, understanding, and interpretability of clinical trial PRO data presented to people with prostate cancer (PC). MATERIALS AND METHODS A 7-day online survey exploring people with PC's preferences for different PRO data presentations (stage 1; n = 30) informed development of a draft plain-language resource sheet containing PRO data. After refining for clarity during cognitive debriefing interviews (stage 2; n = 18), the final resource sheet was circulated to people with PC for broader feedback (stage 3; n = 45). RESULTS Although participants expressed preferences for certain graphical formats (pie charts and bar charts), preference did not always associate with interpretability and overall message clarity. Iterative development (stages 1 and 2) led to a final resource sheet, which 91.1% of participants in stage 3 considered useful and informative, and 88.9% expressed interest in receiving similar resources in the future. DISCUSSION Findings demonstrate PRO data are relevant to people with PC and highlights that targeted resource sheets can support patient-clinician discussions. Appropriate graphical formatting and use of plain-language text is essential for conveying interpretable PRO data. Data visualization preferences are context dependent. CONCLUSION Resource sheets summarizing clinical trial PRO data can be helpful for decision-making in PC. Researchers and patients can work together to develop clear, relevant, sensitive, and understandable resource sheets, which equally consider patient priorities as well as those of scientists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily Ruzich
- Patient Centered Solutions, IQVIA, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Jason Ritchie
- Patient Centered Solutions, IQVIA, New York, New York, USA
| | | | | | | | | | - Diane Harman
- Patient Centered Solutions, IQVIA, New York, New York, USA
| | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Kitts AB, Marquiss K, Reuss T, Samples M, Waldrip C, Vincoff NS. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Patient-Friendly Summaries and Patient-Friendly Animations: Initiatives to Engage Patients and Promote Shared Decision Making. J Am Coll Radiol 2024; 21:34-39. [PMID: 37805015 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.10.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2023] [Accepted: 10/03/2023] [Indexed: 10/09/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Borondy Kitts
- Rescue Lung Society, Jupiter, Florida, and is a Board Member of the Rescue Lung Society, COO Prosumer Health. https://twitter.com/findlungcancer
| | - Kelly Marquiss
- ACR, Reston, Virginia. https://twitter.com/KellyAChurch22
| | - Ted Reuss
- ACR, Reston, Virginia, and is principal project manager, ACR Patient- and Family-Centered (PFCC) Commission, and lead project manager, Patient-Friendly Animations Program.
| | - Meg Samples
- ACR, Reston, Virginia, and is Manager, ACR Patient- and Family-Centered Care Commission; Executive Director, International Society of Radiology; and Board Chair, Virtual Preparatory Academy of South Carolina. https://twitter.com/peacenmeg
| | | | - Nina S Vincoff
- Associate Professor of Radiology and Chief of Division of Breast Imaging, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, and is Medical Director and Vice President for Clinical Initiatives and Patient Experience, Katz Institute for Women's Health; Cochair, Patient Engagement Committee, Commission for Patient and Family Centered Care; and Chair, Appropriateness Criteria Patient Engagement Subcommittee, Commission for Quality and Safety.
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Zarshenas S, Mosel J, Chui A, Seaton S, Singh H, Moroz S, Khan T, Logan S, Colquhoun H. Recommended characteristics and processes for writing lay summaries of healthcare evidence: a co-created scoping review and consultation exercise. RESEARCH INVOLVEMENT AND ENGAGEMENT 2023; 9:121. [PMID: 38124104 PMCID: PMC10734197 DOI: 10.1186/s40900-023-00531-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2023] [Accepted: 12/11/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lay summaries (LSs) of scientific evidence are critical to sharing research with non-specialist audiences. This scoping review with a consultation exercise aimed to (1) Describe features of the available LS resources; (2) Summarize recommended LS characteristics and content; (3) Outline recommended processes to write a LS; and (4) Obtain stakeholder perspectives on LS characteristics and writing processes. METHODS This project was a patient and public partner (PPP)-initiated topic co-led by a PPP and a researcher. The team was supported by three additional PPPs and four researchers. A search of peer-reviewed (Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane libraries, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC and PubMed data bases) and grey literature was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodological Guidance for Scoping Reviews to include any resource that described LS characteristics and writing processes. Two reviewers screened and extracted all resources. Resource descriptions and characteristics were organized by frequency, and processes were inductively analyzed. Nine patient and public partners and researchers participated in three consultation exercise sessions to contextualize the review findings. RESULTS Of the identified 80 resources, 99% described characteristics of a LS and 13% described processes for writing a LS. About half (51%) of the resources were published in the last two years. The most recommended characteristics were to avoid jargon (78%) and long or complex sentences (60%). The most frequently suggested LS content to include was study findings (79%). The key steps in writing a LS were doing pre-work, preparing for the target audience, writing, reviewing, finalizing, and disseminating knowledge. Consultation exercise participants prioritized some LS characteristics differently compared to the literature and found many characteristics oversimplistic. Consultation exercise participants generally supported the writing processes found in the literature but suggested some refinements. CONCLUSIONS Writing LSs is potentially a growing area, however, efforts are needed to enhance our understanding of important LS characteristics, create resources with and for PPPs, and develop optimal writing processes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sareh Zarshenas
- Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - JoAnne Mosel
- Patient Partner, The Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR)-Evidence Alliance, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Adora Chui
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Samantha Seaton
- Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Hardeep Singh
- Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada
- KITE Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Sandra Moroz
- Patient Partner, The Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR)-Evidence Alliance, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Tayaba Khan
- Patient Partner, The Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR)-Evidence Alliance, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Sherrie Logan
- Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
| | - Heather Colquhoun
- Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
- Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Riganti P, McKinnon AM. Plain language summaries: enhancing patient-centred care and improving accessibility of health research. BMJ Evid Based Med 2023; 28:299-302. [PMID: 37258093 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112200] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/13/2023] [Indexed: 06/02/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Paula Riganti
- The University of British Columbia Faculty of Medicine, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- Family Medicine Department, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Argentina
| | - Annette Marie McKinnon
- Patient Advisors Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
- Centre for Advancing Collaborative Healthcare & Education, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Holford D, Fasce A, Tapper K, Demko M, Lewandowsky S, Hahn U, Abels CM, Al-Rawi A, Alladin S, Sonia Boender T, Bruns H, Fischer H, Gilde C, Hanel PHP, Herzog SM, Kause A, Lehmann S, Nurse MS, Orr C, Pescetelli N, Petrescu M, Sah S, Schmid P, Sirota M, Wulf M. Science Communication as a Collective Intelligence Endeavor: A Manifesto and Examples for Implementation. SCIENCE COMMUNICATION 2023; 45:539-554. [PMID: 37994373 PMCID: PMC7615322 DOI: 10.1177/10755470231162634] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2023]
Abstract
Effective science communication is challenging when scientific messages are informed by a continually updating evidence base and must often compete against misinformation. We argue that we need a new program of science communication as collective intelligence-a collaborative approach, supported by technology. This would have four key advantages over the typical model where scientists communicate as individuals: scientific messages would be informed by (a) a wider base of aggregated knowledge, (b) contributions from a diverse scientific community, (c) participatory input from stakeholders, and (d) better responsiveness to ongoing changes in the state of knowledge.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Miso Demko
- Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Helen Fischer
- Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tübingen, Germany
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Maria Petrescu
- Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Daytona Beach, FL, USA
| | | | | | | | - Marlene Wulf
- Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Anderson LB, Kanneganti D, Houk MB, Holm RH, Smith T. Generative AI as a Tool for Environmental Health Research Translation. GEOHEALTH 2023; 7:e2023GH000875. [PMID: 37502196 PMCID: PMC10369501 DOI: 10.1029/2023gh000875] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/31/2023] [Revised: 06/30/2023] [Accepted: 07/14/2023] [Indexed: 07/29/2023]
Abstract
One valuable application for generative artificial intelligence (AI) is summarizing research studies for non-academic readers. We submitted five articles to Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer (ChatGPT) for summarization, and asked the article's author to rate the summaries. Higher ratings were assigned to more insight-oriented activities, such as the production of eighth-grade reading level summaries, and summaries highlighting the most important findings and real-world applications. The general summary request was rated lower. For the field of environmental health science, no-cost AI technology such as ChatGPT holds the promise to improve research translation, but it must continue to be improved (or improve itself) from its current capability.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren B. Anderson
- Christina Lee Brown Envirome InstituteSchool of MedicineUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleKYUSA
- Department of Urban and Public AffairsCollege of Arts and SciencesUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleKYUSA
| | - Dhiraj Kanneganti
- Christina Lee Brown Envirome InstituteSchool of MedicineUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleKYUSA
| | - Mary Bentley Houk
- Christina Lee Brown Envirome InstituteSchool of MedicineUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleKYUSA
| | - Rochelle H. Holm
- Christina Lee Brown Envirome InstituteSchool of MedicineUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleKYUSA
| | - Ted Smith
- Christina Lee Brown Envirome InstituteSchool of MedicineUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleKYUSA
- University of Louisville Superfund Research CenterLouisvilleKYUSA
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Power EGM. Considerations for Effective Communication of Medical Information. Pharmaceut Med 2023; 37:97-101. [PMID: 36787014 PMCID: PMC9926411 DOI: 10.1007/s40290-023-00461-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/22/2023] [Indexed: 02/15/2023]
Abstract
An ongoing and increasing shift is occurring in ways in which the healthcare community (healthcare providers, patients, biopharma) disseminates and consumes information. Adoption of digital technologies, accelerated by the virtual environment created by the COVID-19 pandemic, are leading to new and innovative ways in which medical and scientific information and data are communicated. Digital technologies have largely enabled these approaches and led to an explosive increase in availability of information. This article describes considerations in how the healthcare community, and Medical Affairs organizations in biopharma, can effectively harness these channels to communicate effectively, and incorporate changes in behaviors and approaches to redefine what medical information and data look like.
Collapse
|