How Can we Best Communicate the Findings of Systematic Reviews to the Public? A Study Within A Review
试验速览
- 阶段
- 3 期
- 状态
- 已完成
- 入组人数
- 67
- 试验地点
- 1
- 主要终点
- Immediate comprehension of the information presented in the review summary.
研究概览
简要总结
A systematic review is a type of research that collects and analyses all the existing studies on a specific topic in a structured and organised way. Instead of just looking at one study, it combines results from many studies to get a clearer, more reliable answer to a question. However, the complex language used in systematic reviews often makes them inaccessible to the public, highlighting the need for effective communication strategies, particularly for reviews relating to health and social care or public health. However, there is limited research exploring alternative ways to present research articles, with only a few delivery methods studied so far. It remains unclear how different styles of communicating might effectively convey scientific findings accurately or enhance public engagement and understanding of complex topics.
Studies Within A Review (SWARs) are studies which are embedded into a systematic review and aim to form an evidence base to improve how we plan, do, and share systematic reviews. SWARs offer a promising way of improving the methodology of systematic reviews and dissemination of their findings.
This randomised trial aims to address the current research gap by identifying the effectiveness of two different ways to communicate systematic review findings to the public and determining which methods are more suitable for different audiences: participants will be asked to read a summary or watch an animated video of a summary of both reviews and then complete a questionnaire about the reviews' findings and conclusions. The study will assess outcomes such as comprehension, perceived understanding, engagement, and interest of participants in reading the full reviews.
By evaluating the impact of different communication strategies, this study aims to strengthen the evidence base for methods to communicate complex scientific findings to the public. The results are expected to provide valuable insights for optimising the communication of the key findings of systematic reviews, ensuring that summaries are clear, engaging and accessible.
详细描述
This randomised Study Within a Review (SWAR) will address the uncertainty in communicating the findings of systematic reviews by comparing the effectiveness of two communication methods. We will evaluate participants' understanding of the key findings from two systematic reviews and their interest in seeking further information. These systematic reviews (summarised below), while covering entirely different topics, are both complex and highly relevant to public health.
Systematic Review 1: Clinical Utility of Biomarkers for Outcomes Prediction in Adults with Suspected Sepsis Presenting to the Emergency Department Sepsis is associated with a high mortality rate, and early detection and diagnosis is crucial. This review aimed to determine whether biomarkers measured in patients presenting to an emergency department with suspected sepsis may predict deterioration, including mortality, critical care admission, organ failure, and septic shock.
Systematic Review 2: Local antibiotics for patients undergoing surgery for open fractures Open fractures are serious injuries where the bone breaks through the skin, often leading to complications like infection. Treating these injuries can be complex and expensive, with many patients needing multiple operations and ongoing care. This review sought to determine if there is evidence that local antibiotics may reduce infection in people who are having surgery for open fractures.
The objectives of this study are
- To determine whether a plain language summary or animated video summary is more effective in conveying the core message of a systematic review.
- To compare the effects of the two methods on perceived understanding, engagement, and interest in reading the full text of the systematic review
研究设计
- 研究类型
- Interventional
- 分配方式
- Randomized
- 干预模型
- Parallel
- 主要目的
- Health Services Research
- 盲法
- None
入排标准
- 年龄范围
- 18 Years 至 —（Adult, Older Adult）
- 性别
- All
- 接受健康志愿者
- 是
入选标准
- •Adults (aged 18 years+)
- •Any gender
- •Able to read and understand English
- •Willing to read and listen to review summaries, and answer questions
- •Provide informed consent to participate
排除标准
- •People with learning difficulty
- •People who do not read or understand English
- •People with hearing or visual impairment
- •People under 18 years of age
研究组 & 干预措施
Reading group
Written summary of a systematic review
干预措施: Plain language summary (Other)
Video group
Video summary of a systematic review
干预措施: Animated video (Other)
结局指标
主要结局
Immediate comprehension of the information presented in the review summary.
时间窗: Immediately after interaction with the summary.
A multiple-choice question is included to assess participants' understanding of the primary focus of the research by asking them to choose from a list of topics about the focus of the review, only one of which is correct. There are also five questions presented as statements relating to specific content from the review summary and participants are required to indicate whether each statement is true or false. The unit of measure will be the proportion of participants who select the correct answer to each question. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.
Retention of the participant's comprehension of the information presented in the review summary
时间窗: 1 to 2 weeks after interaction with the summary.
Participants will answer the same six questions that were used to assess their comprehension immediately after their interaction with the summary. This will include a multiple-choice question asking them to choose from a list of topics about the focus of the review, only one of which is correct. There are also five questions presented as statements relating to specific content from the review summary and participants are required to indicate whether each statement is true or false. The unit of measure will be the proportion of participants who select the correct answer to each question. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.
次要结局
- Participant's perceived understanding (i.e. how well they believe they understood the review summary)(Immediately after interaction with the summary.)
- Participant's enjoyment of their interaction with the summary(Immediately after interaction with the summary.)
- Participant's interest in reading the full text of the systematic review after their interaction with its summary(Immediately after interaction with the summary.)
研究者
Mike Clarke
Chair, Research Methodology
Queen's University, Belfast