Preferences of Knowledge Users for Two Formats of Summarizing Results from Systematic Reviews: Infographics and Critical Appraisals

Katelynn Crick and Lisa Hartling

PLOS ONE, 2015, vol. 10, issue 10, 1-8

Abstract: Objectives: To examine and compare preferences of knowledge users for two different formats of summarizing results from systematic reviews: infographics and critical appraisals. Design: Cross-sectional. Setting: Annual members’ meeting of a Network of Centres of Excellence in Knowledge Mobilization called TREKK (Translating Emergency Knowledge for Kids). TREKK is a national network of researchers, clinicians, health consumers, and relevant organizations with the goal of mobilizing knowledge to improve emergency care for children. Participants: Members of the TREKK Network attending the annual meeting in October 2013. Outcome Measures: Overall preference for infographic vs. critical appraisal format. Members’ rating of each format on a 10-point Likert scale for clarity, comprehensibility, and aesthetic appeal. Members’ impressions of the appropriateness of the two formats for their professional role and for other audiences. Results: Among 64 attendees, 58 members provided feedback (91%). Overall, their preferred format was divided with 24/47 (51%) preferring the infographic to the critical appraisal. Preference varied by professional role, with 15/22 (68%) of physicians preferring the critical appraisal and 8/12 (67%) of nurses preferring the infographic. The critical appraisal was rated higher for clarity (mean 7.8 vs. 7.0; p = 0.03), while the infographic was rated higher for aesthetic appeal (mean 7.2 vs. 5.0; p

Date: 2015
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0140029 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 40029&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0140029

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140029

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().