Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: In the context of increasing complexity of the medical discourses and the enormous amount of information available, providing medical professionals and lay people with 'accessible, credible information to support informed decision-making' (www.cochrane.org/about-us) is an adequate mission for research institutions. In order to support medical professionals in their daily work and to ensure development of medical awareness among lay audience, the reception of the information disseminated by researchers should be evaluated and readers preferences need to be taken into account.
Objectives: The aim of this research was to gain an understanding of recipients' perception of the available formats of presenting findings of systematic reviews.
Methods: We conducted five Focus Group Interviews (FGI) with university employees (n=6), public health students (n=8), pharmacists (n=7), patients and caregivers (n=6) as well as physicians and nurses (n=6). We presented nine information formats to the study participants: Plain language summary (PLS), audio-recorded PLS, 'Summary of findings' table (SoF), vlogshot, blogshot, infographics, press-release (PR), comic drawing, and abstract. During a moderated discussion participants were encouraged to share their individual opinions about perceived usefulness of the formats, their strong sides and flaws. The video-recorded interviews were then transcribed and inductively coded. In order to identify patterns of preferences, the technique of constant comparison and data visualization were used.
Results: The gathered material provided an insight into people’s variety of preferences. For the study participants important characteristics of the presented information were: its trustworthiness; an applicatory character; comprehensibility; information structure, graphical means used and clarity as well as general effect. We categorized opinions about the presented forms of popularizing results from SR into three groups: positive, negative and ambiguous. Positive comments have concerned the structured formats, presenting practical benefits for the reader, using graphic representations, comprehensibility of the information, precision of the information and clearness of conclusions. Negative comments related to the lack of information about possibility to apply the conclusions as well as the incomprehensibility of the applied terminology on one hand, and the low precision or lack of intervention effect on the other. When talking about some formats, ambiguous opinions weighted pluses and minuses.
Conclusions: The data gathered suggest that each format should be carefully revised and accompanied with clear guidelines.Tailoring the presentation of SR findings to the needs of the various categories of targeted recipients may result in a greater efficiency of the efforts to disseminate them.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Our research efforts aimed at understanding the needs of various categories of recipients of Cochrane SR summaries, including the lay audience, patients and their families.
Objectives: The aim of this research was to gain an understanding of recipients' perception of the available formats of presenting findings of systematic reviews.
Methods: We conducted five Focus Group Interviews (FGI) with university employees (n=6), public health students (n=8), pharmacists (n=7), patients and caregivers (n=6) as well as physicians and nurses (n=6). We presented nine information formats to the study participants: Plain language summary (PLS), audio-recorded PLS, 'Summary of findings' table (SoF), vlogshot, blogshot, infographics, press-release (PR), comic drawing, and abstract. During a moderated discussion participants were encouraged to share their individual opinions about perceived usefulness of the formats, their strong sides and flaws. The video-recorded interviews were then transcribed and inductively coded. In order to identify patterns of preferences, the technique of constant comparison and data visualization were used.
Results: The gathered material provided an insight into people’s variety of preferences. For the study participants important characteristics of the presented information were: its trustworthiness; an applicatory character; comprehensibility; information structure, graphical means used and clarity as well as general effect. We categorized opinions about the presented forms of popularizing results from SR into three groups: positive, negative and ambiguous. Positive comments have concerned the structured formats, presenting practical benefits for the reader, using graphic representations, comprehensibility of the information, precision of the information and clearness of conclusions. Negative comments related to the lack of information about possibility to apply the conclusions as well as the incomprehensibility of the applied terminology on one hand, and the low precision or lack of intervention effect on the other. When talking about some formats, ambiguous opinions weighted pluses and minuses.
Conclusions: The data gathered suggest that each format should be carefully revised and accompanied with clear guidelines.Tailoring the presentation of SR findings to the needs of the various categories of targeted recipients may result in a greater efficiency of the efforts to disseminate them.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Our research efforts aimed at understanding the needs of various categories of recipients of Cochrane SR summaries, including the lay audience, patients and their families.