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

Claire Glenton, Nancy Santesso, Sarah Rosenbaum, Elin Strømme Nilsen, Tamara Rader, Agustin Ciapponi and Helen Dilkes
Additional contact information
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

Medical Decision Making, 2010, vol. 30, issue 5, 566-577

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.

Keywords: systematic reviews; evidence synthesis; qualitative methods; health service research; patient decision making; decision aids—tools; risk communication or risk perception. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2010
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X10375853 (text/html)

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:sae:medema:v:30:y:2010:i:5:p:566-577

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10375853

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().