Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: People have difficulties in understanding health information. Thus, plain language summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews are meant to be written in the way everyone could understand and make responsible decisions, presenting a bridge to overcome the gap between the healthcare users and professionals.
Objectives: The aim of the study is to assess the language characteristics of plain language summaries (PLSs) of systematic reviews of oncology interventions in comparison to the language of corresponding scientific abstracts.
Methods: In this cross sectional study we included all Cochrane scientific abstracts (SA) and corresponding PLSs of systematic reviews of oncology interventions available in the Cochrane up to February 2019, including Breast Cancer group, Childhood Cancer group, Gynecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancers group, Hematology group, and Lung Cancer group. Language characteristics of PLS included text readability, measured using the SMOG index, and prevalence of words related different language tones (clout, authenticity, emotions and analytical) measured using LIWC software and conclusiveness of the PLS .
Results: In total, we collected 275 PLSs and corresponding SA of systematic reviews of oncology interventions. In general, SMOG index of PLSs was slightly above the recommended 12 years of education for health information materials, and the readability did not differ across Cochrane review groups. In general, the PLSs from the Colorectal Cancer Group were the shortest, whereas the PLSs from the Hematological Malignancies Group had the lowest proportion of words reflecting emotional tone. Lung Cancer Group had the highest proportion of PLSs with negative conclusions compared to the other groups. Childhood Cancer Group did not have any summaries with positive conclusions. Gynecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancer Group and Breast Cancer Group had no PLSs where the authors provided an opinion.
Overall, PLSs with “no evidence” conclusion had the lowest SMOG index, as well as the fewest number of words compared to other conclusiveness categories.
PLSs with positive and equal conclusiveness had the lowest proportion of words with analytical tone, while the PLSs with “no evidence” for any definite conclusion had a greater proportion of words related to clout tone.
The comparison of PLSs and SAs language is underway and will be presented at the Colloquium.
Conclusions: PLSs of Cochrane systematic reviews of oncological interventions have low readability and low emotional tone, as well as conclusiveness of the review findings. We intend to further compare PLSs and CSSs, to understand the differences in the language of scientific and popular health information texts in order to suggest possible ways of improving the usability of information from Cochrane systematic review.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
Based on the results we will have the information which can be used as the recommendations for PLS writing improvement.
Objectives: The aim of the study is to assess the language characteristics of plain language summaries (PLSs) of systematic reviews of oncology interventions in comparison to the language of corresponding scientific abstracts.
Methods: In this cross sectional study we included all Cochrane scientific abstracts (SA) and corresponding PLSs of systematic reviews of oncology interventions available in the Cochrane up to February 2019, including Breast Cancer group, Childhood Cancer group, Gynecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancers group, Hematology group, and Lung Cancer group. Language characteristics of PLS included text readability, measured using the SMOG index, and prevalence of words related different language tones (clout, authenticity, emotions and analytical) measured using LIWC software and conclusiveness of the PLS .
Results: In total, we collected 275 PLSs and corresponding SA of systematic reviews of oncology interventions. In general, SMOG index of PLSs was slightly above the recommended 12 years of education for health information materials, and the readability did not differ across Cochrane review groups. In general, the PLSs from the Colorectal Cancer Group were the shortest, whereas the PLSs from the Hematological Malignancies Group had the lowest proportion of words reflecting emotional tone. Lung Cancer Group had the highest proportion of PLSs with negative conclusions compared to the other groups. Childhood Cancer Group did not have any summaries with positive conclusions. Gynecological, Neuro-oncology and Orphan Cancer Group and Breast Cancer Group had no PLSs where the authors provided an opinion.
Overall, PLSs with “no evidence” conclusion had the lowest SMOG index, as well as the fewest number of words compared to other conclusiveness categories.
PLSs with positive and equal conclusiveness had the lowest proportion of words with analytical tone, while the PLSs with “no evidence” for any definite conclusion had a greater proportion of words related to clout tone.
The comparison of PLSs and SAs language is underway and will be presented at the Colloquium.
Conclusions: PLSs of Cochrane systematic reviews of oncological interventions have low readability and low emotional tone, as well as conclusiveness of the review findings. We intend to further compare PLSs and CSSs, to understand the differences in the language of scientific and popular health information texts in order to suggest possible ways of improving the usability of information from Cochrane systematic review.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement:
Based on the results we will have the information which can be used as the recommendations for PLS writing improvement.