IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v30y2010i5p566-577.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Presenting the Results of Cochrane Systematic Reviews to a Consumer Audience: A Qualitative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Claire Glenton

    (Norwegian Branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway, claire.glenton@sintef.no)

  • Nancy Santesso

    (Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Bio-statistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada)

  • Sarah Rosenbaum

    (Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway)

  • Elin Strømme Nilsen

    (Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Bio-statistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada)

  • Tamara Rader

    (Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada)

  • Agustin Ciapponi

    (Argentine Cochrane Centre IECS, Institute of Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Buenos Aires, Argentina)

  • Helen Dilkes

    (Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group, Centre for Health Communication and Participation, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia)

Abstract

Objective. To develop and obtain feedback about a summary format for Cochrane reviews that is accessible to a consumer audience, without oversimplification or incorrect presentation. Methods. We developed 3 versions of a Plain Language Summary (PLS) format of a Cochrane Systematic Review. Using a semi-structured interview guide we tested these versions among 34 members of the public in Norway, Argentina, Canada, and Australia. The authors analyzed feedback, identified problems, and generated new solutions before retesting to produce a final version of a Plain Language Summary format. Results. Participants preferred results presented as words, supplemented by numbers in a table. There was a lack of understanding regarding the difference between a review and an individual study, that the effect is rarely an exact number, that evidence can be of low or high quality, and that level of quality is a separate issue from intervention effect. Participants also found it difficult to move between presentations of dichotomous and continuous outcomes. Rephrasing the introduction helped participants grasp the concept of a review. Confidence intervals were largely ignored or misunderstood. Our attempts to explain them were only partially successful. Text modifiers (‘‘probably,’’ ‘‘may’’) to convey different levels of quality were only partially understood, whereas symbols with explanations were more helpful. Participants often understood individual information elements about effect size and quality of these results, but did not always actively merge these elements. Conclusion. Through testing and iteration the authors identified and addressed several problems, using explanations, rephrasing, and symbols to present scientific concepts. Other problems remain, including how best to present confidence intervals and continuous outcomes. Future research should also test information elements in combination rather than in isolation. The new Plain Language Summary format is being evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

Suggested Citation

  • Claire Glenton & Nancy Santesso & Sarah Rosenbaum & Elin Strømme Nilsen & Tamara Rader & Agustin Ciapponi & Helen Dilkes, 2010. "Presenting the Results of Cochrane Systematic Reviews to a Consumer Audience: A Qualitative Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 30(5), pages 566-577, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:5:p:566-577
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10375853
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10375853
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X10375853?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Holger J. Schünemann & Elisabeth Ståhl & Peggy Austin & Elie Akl & David Armstrong & Gordon H. Guyatt, 2004. "A Comparison of Narrative and Table Formats for Presenting Hypothetical Health States to Patients with Gastrointestinal or Pulmonary Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 24(1), pages 53-60, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Reem A Mustafa & Wojtek Wiercioch & Nancy Santesso & Adrienne Cheung & Barbara Prediger & Tejan Baldeh & Alonso Carrasco-Labra & Romina Brignardello-Petersen & Ignacio Neumann & Patrick Bossuyt & Amit, 2015. "Decision-Making about Healthcare Related Tests and Diagnostic Strategies: User Testing of GRADE Evidence Tables," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-12, October.
    2. Cameron Brick & Alexandra L. J. Freeman & Steven Wooding & William J. Skylark & Theresa M. Marteau & David J. Spiegelhalter, 2018. "Winners and losers: communicating the potential impacts of policies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Peter Wiedemann & Holger Schütz & Albena Spangenberg & Harald F. Krug, 2011. "Evidence Maps: Communicating Risk Assessments in Societal Controversies: The Case of Engineered Nanoparticles," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1770-1783, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fanni Rencz & Peep F. M. Stalmeier & Márta Péntek & Valentin Brodszky & Gábor Ruzsa & Lóránt Gönczi & Károly Palatka & László Herszényi & Eszter Schäfer & János Banai & Mariann Rutka & László Gulácsi , 2019. "Patient and general population values for luminal and perianal fistulising Crohn’s disease health states," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(1), pages 91-100, June.
    2. Richard D. Smith, 2008. "Contingent valuation in health care: does it matter how the ‘good’ is described?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(5), pages 607-617, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:5:p:566-577. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.