Nancy Santesso1, Tamara Rader2, Elin Strømme Nilsen3, Claire Glenton3, Sarah Rosenbaum3, Agustín Ciapponi4, Lorenzo Moja5, Jordi Pardo Pardo2, Qi Zhou6, Holger J Schünemann7. 1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L8. Electronic address: santesna@mcmaster.ca. 2. Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group, Institute of Population Health, University of Ottawa, 1 Stewart St., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5. 3. The Norwegian Branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Pilestredet Park 7, 0130 Oslo, Norway. 4. Argentine Cochrane Centre, Instituto de Efectividad Clínica y Sanitaria (IECS), Dr. Emilio Ravignani 2024, Buenos Aires, Argentina C1414CPV - C1181ACH. 5. Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan, Via Festa del Perdono 7, 20122 Milan, Italy; Clinical Epidemiology Unit, IRCCS Orthopedic Institute Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, 20161 Milan, Italy. 6. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L8. 7. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L8; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4L8.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a new format of a summary, which presents research from synthesized evidence to patients and the public. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 143 members of the public from five countries (Canada, Norway, Spain, Argentina, and Italy). Participants received either a new summary format (a plain language summary [PLS]) or the current format used in Cochrane systematic reviews. The new PLS presents information about the condition and intervention, a narrative summary of results, and a table of results with absolute numbers for effects of the intervention and quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. RESULTS: With the new PLS, more participants understood the benefits and harms and quality of evidence (53% vs. 18%, P < 0.001); more answered each of the five questions correctly (P ≤ 0.001 for four questions); and they answered more questions correctly, median 3 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1-4) vs. 1 (IQR: 0-1), P < 0.001). Better understanding was independent of education level. More participants found information in the new PLS reliable, easy to find, easy to understand, and presented in a way that helped make decisions. Overall, participants preferred the new PLS. CONCLUSION: This new PLS format for patients and the public is a promising tool to translate evidence from synthesized research.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a new format of a summary, which presents research from synthesized evidence to patients and the public. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 143 members of the public from five countries (Canada, Norway, Spain, Argentina, and Italy). Participants received either a new summary format (a plain language summary [PLS]) or the current format used in Cochrane systematic reviews. The new PLS presents information about the condition and intervention, a narrative summary of results, and a table of results with absolute numbers for effects of the intervention and quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. RESULTS: With the new PLS, more participants understood the benefits and harms and quality of evidence (53% vs. 18%, P < 0.001); more answered each of the five questions correctly (P ≤ 0.001 for four questions); and they answered more questions correctly, median 3 (interquartile range [IQR]: 1-4) vs. 1 (IQR: 0-1), P < 0.001). Better understanding was independent of education level. More participants found information in the new PLS reliable, easy to find, easy to understand, and presented in a way that helped make decisions. Overall, participants preferred the new PLS. CONCLUSION: This new PLS format for patients and the public is a promising tool to translate evidence from synthesized research.
Authors: Matt Oxman; Lillebeth Larun; Giordano Pérez Gaxiola; Dima Alsaid; Anila Qasim; Christopher James Rose; Karin Bischoff; Andrew David Oxman Journal: F1000Res Date: 2021-06-01
Authors: Amol Utrankar; Tilicia L Mayo-Gamble; Whitney Allen; Laurie Novak; Adetola A Kassim; Kemberlee Bonnet; David Schlundt; Velma M Murry; Gretchen Purcell Jackson; Michael DeBaun; Robert M Cronin Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Shaun Treweek; Doug G Altman; Peter Bower; Marion Campbell; Iain Chalmers; Seonaidh Cotton; Peter Craig; David Crosby; Peter Davidson; Declan Devane; Lelia Duley; Janet Dunn; Diana Elbourne; Barbara Farrell; Carrol Gamble; Katie Gillies; Kerry Hood; Trudie Lang; Roberta Littleford; Kirsty Loudon; Alison McDonald; Gladys McPherson; Annmarie Nelson; John Norrie; Craig Ramsay; Peter Sandercock; Daniel R Shanahan; William Summerskill; Matt Sydes; Paula Williamson; Mike Clarke Journal: Trials Date: 2015-06-05 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Anna R Gagliardi; France Légaré; Melissa C Brouwers; Fiona Webster; Elizabeth Badley; Sharon Straus Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2016-02-29 Impact factor: 7.327