RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 What instructions are available to health researchers for writing lay summaries? A scoping review
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.06.09.21258450
DO 10.1101/2021.06.09.21258450
A1 Karen M Gainey
A1 Mary O’Keeffe
A1 Adrian C Traeger
A1 Danielle M Muscat
A1 Christopher M Williams
A1 Kirsten J McCaffrey
A1 Steven J Kamper
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/12/2021.06.09.21258450.abstract
AB Objective To better understand the characteristics of, and requirements for, lay summaries by reviewing journals, global health organisations, professional medical associations and multi-disciplinary organisations, consumer advocacy groups and funding bodies.Design Using a scoping review methodology, we searched the websites of each identified data source to determine if they require, suggest, or refer to lay summaries. Two reviewers extracted lay summary writing instructions from eligible data sources from Australia, USA, UK, Canada and New Zealand. Data sources were linked to the top 10 non-communicable diseases.Main Outcome Measures Using an inductive approach, we identified characteristics of lay summaries and lay summary writing instructions and extracted data on these characteristics. These characteristics are lay summary formats, audience, requirements, authorship and labels, and elements of lay summary writing instructions (e.g. word count/length). We also noted who was expected to write the lay summaries, whether they were mandatory or optional, and the terms used for to denote them.Results The websites of 526 data sources were searched. Of these, 124 published or mentioned lay summaries and 108 provided writing instructions. For lay summaries, most were in journals, written by the author of the published paper, and only half were mandatory. Thirty-three distinct labels for a lay summary were identified, the most common being “graphical abstract”, “highlights” and “key points”. From the lay summary writing instructions, the most common elements for written lay summaries referred to: structure (86%), content (80%) and word count/length (74%). The least common elements were readability (3%), use of jargon, acronyms and abbreviations (24%), and wording (29%). The target audience was unclear in 68 of 108 (63.0%) of lay summary instructions.Discussion Although we identified over 100 sources provided instructions for writing lay summaries, very few provided instructions related to readability, use of jargon, acronyms and abbreviations, and wording. Some instructions provided structured formats via subheadings or questions to guide content, but not all. Only half mandated the use of lay summaries.Conclusion For lay summaries to be effective, writing instructions should consider the intended audience, ideally incorporating consumer input into their development. Presently, lay summaries are likely to be inaccessible to many consumers, written at a high reading level, with jargon, acronyms and abbreviations. Ideally, all research articles will have an accompanying lay summary. Mandatory lay summaries, however, are of limited value without clear and thorough instructions to guide authors.Public and patient involvement statement Patients or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of our research study.Protocol and registration We conducted a scoping review using methods outlined in the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews and information in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual for scoping reviews. A protocol for this study was completed prior to data analysis and is on Open Science Framework.Competing Interest StatementAll authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf . Two authors declare financial support from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia for contribution to their fellowships and one author declares financial support from an NHMRC program grant (APP1113532) entitled Using healthcare wisely: reducing inappropriate use of tests and treatments. NHMRC funding was not related to this study however this organisation might have an interest in the submitted work. All authors declare no other financial relationships with any other organisation that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.Funding StatementNAAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:NAAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAdditional detailed data can be obtained from the authors on request. The corresponding author confirms that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported. No important aspects of the study have been omitted and any discrepancies from the study as planned have been disclosed.