IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v17y2024i5d10.1007_s40271-024-00700-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Practices and Barriers in Developing and Disseminating Plain-Language Resources Reporting Medical Research Information: A Scoping Review

Author

Listed:
  • Avishek Pal

    (University of Basel)

  • Isabelle Arnet

    (University of Basel)

  • Bernice Simone Elger

    (University of Basel
    University of Geneva)

  • Tenzin Wangmo

    (University of Basel)

Abstract

Background The intent of plain-language resources (PLRs) reporting medical research information is to advance health literacy among the general public and enable them to participate in shared decision-making (SDM). Regulatory mandates coupled with academic and industry initiatives have given rise to an increasing volume of PLRs summarizing medical research information. However, there is significant variability in the quality, format, readability, and dissemination channels for PLRs. In this scoping review, we identify current practices, guidance, and barriers in developing and disseminating PLRs reporting medical research information to the general public including patients and caregivers. We also report on the PLR preferences of these intended audiences. Methods A literature search of three bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science) and three clinical trial registries (NIH, EMA, ISRCTN registry) was performed. Snowball searches within reference lists of primary articles were added. Articles with PLRs or reporting topics related to PLRs use and development available between January 2017 and June 2023 were identified. Evidence mapping and synthesis were used to make qualitative observations. Identified PLRs were quantitatively assessed, including temporal annual trends, availability by field of medicine, language, and publisher types. Results A total of 9116 PLRs were identified, 9041 from the databases and 75 from clinical trial registries. The final analysis included 6590 PLRs from databases and 72 from registries. Reported barriers to PLR development included ambiguity in guidance, lack of incentives, and concerns of researchers writing for the general public. Available guidance recommendations called for greater dissemination, increased readability, and varied content formats. Patients preferred visual PLRs formats (e.g., videos, comics), which were easy to access on the internet and used short jargon-free text. In some instances, older audiences and more educated readers preferred text-only PLRs. Preferences among the general public were mostly similar to those of patients. Psychology, followed by oncology, showed the highest number of PLRs, predominantly from academia-sponsored research. Text-only PLRs were most commonly available, while graphical, digital, or online formats were less available. Preferred dissemination channels included paywall-free journal websites, indexing on PubMed, third-party websites, via email to research participants, and social media. Conclusions This scoping review maps current practices, recommendations, and patients’ and the general public’s preferences for PLR development and dissemination. The results suggest that making PLRs available to a wider audience by improving nomenclature, accessibility, and providing translations may contribute to empowerment and SDM. Minimizing variability among available guidance for PLR development may play an important role in amplifying the value and impact of these resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Avishek Pal & Isabelle Arnet & Bernice Simone Elger & Tenzin Wangmo, 2024. "Practices and Barriers in Developing and Disseminating Plain-Language Resources Reporting Medical Research Information: A Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 17(5), pages 493-518, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00700-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-024-00700-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-024-00700-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-024-00700-y?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Smith, Sian K. & Dixon, Ann & Trevena, Lyndal & Nutbeam, Don & McCaffery, Kirsten J., 2009. "Exploring patient involvement in healthcare decision making across different education and functional health literacy groups," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 69(12), pages 1805-1812, December.
    2. Karen M. Gainey & Jenna Smith & Kirsten J. McCaffery & Sharon Clifford & Danielle M. Muscat, 2023. "What Author Instructions Do Health Journals Provide for Writing Plain Language Summaries? A Scoping Review," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 16(1), pages 31-42, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ruth Koops van ‘t Jagt & Shu Ling Tan & John Hoeks & Sophie Spoorenberg & Sijmen A. Reijneveld & Andrea F. de Winter & Sonia Lippke & Carel Jansen, 2019. "Using Photo Stories to Support Doctor-Patient Communication: Evaluating a Communicative Health Literacy Intervention for Older Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Kontos, Emily Z. & Emmons, Karen M. & Puleo, Elaine & Viswanath, K., 2011. "Determinants and beliefs of health information mavens among a lower-socioeconomic position and minority population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 22-32, July.
    3. Fiva, Jon H. & Hægeland, Torbjørn & Rønning, Marte & Syse, Astri, 2014. "Access to treatment and educational inequalities in cancer survival," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 98-111.
    4. Hsieh, Pi-Jung & Lai, Hui-Min, 2020. "Exploring people's intentions to use the health passbook in self-management: An extension of the technology acceptance and health behavior theoretical perspectives in health literacy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    5. Fahad Riaz Choudhry & Long Chiau Ming & Khadeeja Munawar & Syed Tabish R. Zaidi & Rahul P. Patel & Tahir Mehmood Khan & Shandell Elmer, 2019. "Health Literacy Studies Conducted in Australia: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-32, March.
    6. Marie-Anne Durand & Lewis Carpenter & Hayley Dolan & Paulina Bravo & Mala Mann & Frances Bunn & Glyn Elwyn, 2014. "Do Interventions Designed to Support Shared Decision-Making Reduce Health Inequalities? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-13, April.
    7. Aimée Hartford Kvæl, Linda & Gautun, Heidi, 2023. "Social inequality in navigating the healthcare maze: Care trajectories from hospital to home via intermediate care for older people in Norway," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 333(C).
    8. Xuefeng Li & Li Deng & Han Yang & Hui Wang, 2020. "Effect of socioeconomic status on the healthcare-seeking behavior of migrant workers in China," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, August.
    9. Osei-Frimpong, Kofi & McLean, Graeme & Wilson, Alan & Lemke, Fred, 2020. "Customer coproduction in healthcare service delivery: Examining the influencing effects of the social context," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 82-93.
    10. Su Hyun Kim & Sonja Utz, 2018. "Association of health literacy with health information‐seeking preference in older people: A correlational, descriptive study," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(3), pages 355-360, September.
    11. Siegel, Jason T. & McManus, Maria D. & Blazek, Danielle R. & Marshburn, Alexander, 2023. "Three-in-1,000 and dynamic norms: A mixed-method investigation of novel appeals for influencing organ donor registration," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 317(C).
    12. Joann Seo & Melody S. Goodman & Mary Politi & Melvin Blanchard & Kimberly A. Kaphingst, 2016. "Effect of Health Literacy on Decision-Making Preferences among Medically Underserved Patients," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 36(4), pages 550-556, May.
    13. Dana L. Alden & John Friend & Ping Yein Lee & Yew Kong Lee & Lyndal Trevena & Chirk Jenn Ng & Sorapop Kiatpongsan & Khatijah Lim Abdullah & Miho Tanaka & Supanida Limpongsanurak, 2018. "Who Decides: Me or We? Family Involvement in Medical Decision Making in Eastern and Western Countries," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 38(1), pages 14-25, January.
    14. Jilong Zhang & Jin Zhang & Kanliang Wang & Wei Yan, 2023. "Should doctors use or avoid medical terms? The influence of medical terms on service quality of E-health," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 1775-1805, September.
    15. Benjamin Miranda Tabak & Matheus B. Froner & Rafael Corrêa & Thiago C. Silva, 2023. "The Intersection of Health Literacy and Public Health: A Machine Learning-Enhanced Bibliometric Investigation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(20), pages 1-18, October.
    16. Melanie Meyer, 2017. "Is Financial Literacy a Determinant of Health?," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 10(4), pages 381-387, August.
    17. Canaway, Rachel & Bismark, Marie & Dunt, David & Prang, Khic-Houy & Kelaher, Margaret, 2018. "“What is meant by public?”: Stakeholder views on strengthening impacts of public reporting of hospital performance data," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 143-150.
    18. Ju Wen & Lan Yi, 2023. "Comparing lay summaries to scientific abstracts for readability and jargon use: a case report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5791-5800, October.
    19. Laura Harzheim & Mariya Lorke & Christiane Woopen & Saskia Jünger, 2020. "Health Literacy as Communicative Action—A Qualitative Study among Persons at Risk in the Context of Predictive and Preventive Medicine," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-27, March.
    20. Nila Armelia Windasari & Fu-ren Lin, 2021. "Why Do People Continue Using Fitness Wearables? The Effect of Interactivity and Gamification," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:spr:patien:v:17:y:2024:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-024-00700-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.