Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Cochrane Reviews (CR) provide an important source of evidence. Many readers will only access the various summaries available for CRs rather than the full review, so it is essential that these are clear and understandable.
Objectives:
We explored whether readers can understand key messages without having to read the full review, and if there were differences in understanding between various types of summary, including an audio podcast.
Methods:
The CR we focused on examines the health impacts of the use of electric fans during heat waves. Thirty-six members of staff at various universities in Ireland participated. Participants were asked if they knew of the review and to select from a list of options the one that matched their expectation of the effect on mortality of using electric fans during heat waves. They were then randomly assigned one of four summaries of the review (i.e. abstract, plain language summary, podcast or podcast transcript). They were asked to spend no more than 15 minutes reading or listening to the summary and then to answer again the question about effect of electric fans on mortality and to indicate whether or not they would now want to read the full Cochrane Review.
Results:
After considering their summary, just over half (53%) the participants identified what the authors of the review regard as its key message on mortality, which is that the research evidence is mixed. The figures were 33% for the abstract group, 50% for both the plain language summary and the transcript groups and 78% for the podcast group. Only 13 (37%) of the respondents said that they would want to read the full review after having considered their summary.
Conclusions:
The differences between the groups were not statistically significant but suggest that the audio summary might improve knowledge transfer compared to written summaries. This finding should be repeated using a larger sample size and with other reviews. This study is part of the SWAR (study within a review) programme which was developed by the All-Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research and the Medical Research Council Hub Network.
Cochrane Reviews (CR) provide an important source of evidence. Many readers will only access the various summaries available for CRs rather than the full review, so it is essential that these are clear and understandable.
Objectives:
We explored whether readers can understand key messages without having to read the full review, and if there were differences in understanding between various types of summary, including an audio podcast.
Methods:
The CR we focused on examines the health impacts of the use of electric fans during heat waves. Thirty-six members of staff at various universities in Ireland participated. Participants were asked if they knew of the review and to select from a list of options the one that matched their expectation of the effect on mortality of using electric fans during heat waves. They were then randomly assigned one of four summaries of the review (i.e. abstract, plain language summary, podcast or podcast transcript). They were asked to spend no more than 15 minutes reading or listening to the summary and then to answer again the question about effect of electric fans on mortality and to indicate whether or not they would now want to read the full Cochrane Review.
Results:
After considering their summary, just over half (53%) the participants identified what the authors of the review regard as its key message on mortality, which is that the research evidence is mixed. The figures were 33% for the abstract group, 50% for both the plain language summary and the transcript groups and 78% for the podcast group. Only 13 (37%) of the respondents said that they would want to read the full review after having considered their summary.
Conclusions:
The differences between the groups were not statistically significant but suggest that the audio summary might improve knowledge transfer compared to written summaries. This finding should be repeated using a larger sample size and with other reviews. This study is part of the SWAR (study within a review) programme which was developed by the All-Ireland Hub for Trials Methodology Research and the Medical Research Council Hub Network.