Comparison of blogshots with plain language summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews: a qualitative study and randomized trial

Abstract

Background Cochrane, an organization dedicated to the production and dissemination of high-quality evidence on health, endeavors to reach consumers by developing appropriate summary formats of its systematic reviews. However, the optimal type of presentation of evidence to consumers is still unknown. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate consumer preferences for different summary formats of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs), using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Methods Initially, we conducted three focus groups with medical students (n = 7), doctors (n = 4), and patients (n = 9) in 2017 to explore their health information search habits and preferences for CSR summary formats. Based on those findings, we conducted a randomized trial with medical students at the University of Split School of Medicine, Croatia, and with patients from three Dalmatian family practices to determine whether they prefer CSR blogshots (n = 115) or CSR plain language summaries (PLSs; n = 123). Results Participants in the focus groups favored brief and explicit CSR summary formats with fewer numbers. Although we found no difference in participants’ preferences for a specific summary format in the overall sample, subgroup analysis showed that patients preferred blogshots over PLSs in comparison to medical students (P = 0.003, eta squared effect size η2 = 0.04). Conclusion CSR summaries should be produced in a format that meets the expectations and needs of consumers. Use of blogshots as a summary format could enhance the dissemination of CSRs among patients. Trial registration The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03542201. Registered on May 31st 2018.

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

“…Many outcomes could be linked to aims of the Accessibility category. In their empirical studies, researchers investigated the readability of PLSs [ 6 , 13 , 15 , 21 , 22 , 28 , 43 – 48 ], participants’ enjoyment or preference of PLSs in general [ 10 , 11 , 39 , 49 ], participants’ satisfaction with text length [ 13 , 22 , 42 ] or participants’ judgment regarding the usability of the PLS [ 3 , 12 , 23 , 28 , 50 , 51 ]. To measure these outcomes, researchers, for example, computed readability indices, such as the Flesch reading ease score [ 13 , 44 , 43 , 47 , 48 ], or participants were asked whether information was easy to find in the PLS [ 50 ].…”

“…We identified 15 empirical articles on PLSs that evaluated one type of PLSs, for example by investigating how readers reacted to a certain PLS, or how easy they can be found. Researchers evaluated Cochrane PLS that address common health issues [ 11 , 57 ], summaries of studies from the Newcastle Cognitive Function after Stroke cohort [ 45 ], consumer summaries of Cochrane Musculoskeletal Reviews [ 23 ], lay summaries on how package sizes affect the consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco [ 28 ], lay summaries on open access journal articles [ 3 ], lay summaries of pragmatic pediatric clinical trials [ 19 ], lay summaries on HDBuzz, a knowledge translation website with a focus on research on Huntington’s disease [ 52 ], PLSs of clinical trials in general [ 21 , 93 , 94 ], PLSs of clinical trials in Japan [ 95 ] and PLSs posted as ‘eLife digests’ [ 8 , 66 ]. There was also one study that investigated how the commitment of volunteer PLS authors can be raised [ 96 ] and one study that developed and tested a PLS template in detail [ 78 ].…”

“…Ten other empirical articles investigated the format of a PLS in general by comparing participants’ responses after having read a PLS to (the same or other) participants’ responses after having read another type of scientific text summary. PLSs were compared to scientific abstracts [ 6 , 44 , 47 , 49 , 53 ], infographics [ 49 ] or graphical abstracts [ 39 ], blog posts [ 50 , 97 ], blogshots [ 11 ], podcasts [ 53 ], transcribed podcasts [ 53 ], Wikipedia articles [ 50 ], video abstracts [ 39 ], press releases [ 44 ], newspaper health articles [ 48 ] and systematic reviews with and without summary of findings tables [ 46 ]. There were statistically significant indications for the superiority of blogshots over both PLSs and Wikipedia articles in terms of ease of use, user preference and aesthetical judgment [ 50 ]; of videos and PLSs over graphical abstracts and scientific abstracts in terms of comprehension, a feeling of understanding and a feeling of enjoyment [ 39 ]; of PLSs over systematic reviews with and without summary of findings tables in terms of clarity and accessibility of information [ 46 ]; of infographics over PLSs in terms of reading experience and user-friendliness, but not of knowledge [ 49 ]; and of newspaper articles over PLSs in terms of readability [ 48 ].…”

Effectiveness of letters to patients with or without Cochrane blogshots on 10-year cardiovascular risk change among women in menopausal transition: 6-month three-arm randomized controlled trial

“…One of the highly respected and high-quality sources of information for both the doctors and the patients is summaries of evidence synthesis—scientific abstracts and plain language abstracts, respectively, such as those produced by Cochrane. We have previously shown that plain language summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews increase knowledge of patients about health issues that is comparable to infographics of the same abstract [ 1 ]. Shortened versions of plain language summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews in the form of single-slide brief and focused information (blogshots) seem to be even more effective than plain language summaries in terms of change in comprehension of health information among patients/consumers [ 1 ].…”

“…We have previously shown that plain language summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews increase knowledge of patients about health issues that is comparable to infographics of the same abstract [ 1 ]. Shortened versions of plain language summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews in the form of single-slide brief and focused information (blogshots) seem to be even more effective than plain language summaries in terms of change in comprehension of health information among patients/consumers [ 1 ].…”