12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Plain language summaries (PLSs) have been introduced to communicate research in an understandable way to a nonexpert audience. Guidelines for writing PLSs have been developed and empirical research on PLSs has been conducted, but terminology and research approaches in this comparatively young field vary considerably. This prompted us to review the current state of the art of the theoretical and empirical literature on PLSs. The two main objectives of this review were to develop a conceptual framework for PLS theory, and to synthesize empirical evidence on PLS criteria. We began by searching Web of Science, PubMed, PsycInfo and PSYNDEX (last search 07/2021). In our review, we included empirical investigations of PLSs, reports on PLS development, PLS guidelines, and theoretical articles referring to PLSs. A conceptual framework was developed through content analysis. Empirical studies investigating effects of PLS criteria on defined outcomes were narratively synthesized. We identified 7,714 records, of which 90 articles met the inclusion criteria. All articles were used to develop a conceptual framework for PLSs which comprises 12 categories: six of PLS aims and six of PLS characteristics. Thirty-three articles empirically investigated effects of PLSs on several outcomes, but study designs were too heterogeneous to identify definite criteria for high-quality PLSs. Few studies identified effects of various criteria on accessibility, understanding, knowledge, communication of research, and empowerment. We did not find empirical evidence to support most of the criteria we identified in the PLS writing guidelines. We conclude that although considerable work on establishing and investigating PLSs is available, empirical evidence on criteria for high-quality PLSs remains scarce. The conceptual framework developed in this review may provide a valuable starting point for future guideline developers and PLS researchers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references89

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century

          D Nutbeam (2000)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data

            The growing competition and “publish or perish” culture in academia might conflict with the objectivity and integrity of research, because it forces scientists to produce “publishable” results at all costs. Papers are less likely to be published and to be cited if they report “negative” results (results that fail to support the tested hypothesis). Therefore, if publication pressures increase scientific bias, the frequency of “positive” results in the literature should be higher in the more competitive and “productive” academic environments. This study verified this hypothesis by measuring the frequency of positive results in a large random sample of papers with a corresponding author based in the US. Across all disciplines, papers were more likely to support a tested hypothesis if their corresponding authors were working in states that, according to NSF data, produced more academic papers per capita. The size of this effect increased when controlling for state's per capita R&D expenditure and for study characteristics that previous research showed to correlate with the frequency of positive results, including discipline and methodology. Although the confounding effect of institutions' prestige could not be excluded (researchers in the more productive universities could be the most clever and successful in their experiments), these results support the hypothesis that competitive academic environments increase not only scientists' productivity but also their bias. The same phenomenon might be observed in other countries where academic competition and pressures to publish are high.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Wicked Problems in Design Thinking

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                6 June 2022
                2022
                : 17
                : 6
                : e0268789
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Trier, Germany
                [2 ] Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research (LIR), Mainz, Germany
                University of Bern: Universitat Bern, SWITZERLAND
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8847-5497
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4103-5018
                Article
                PONE-D-21-24709
                10.1371/journal.pone.0268789
                9170105
                35666746
                56b7bc09-f3d3-4b03-8072-68ee313f6a18
                © 2022 Stoll et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 11 August 2021
                : 9 May 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 3, Pages: 28
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Language
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Language
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Language
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Education and Awareness
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Clinical Medicine
                Clinical Trials
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Pharmacology
                Drug Research and Development
                Clinical Trials
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Clinical Trials
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Scientific Publishing
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Decision Making
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Decision Making
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Decision Making
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognition
                Decision Making
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Statistical Methods
                Metaanalysis
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics
                Statistical Methods
                Metaanalysis
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Medical Risk Factors
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article