Randomised Study Within a Review (SWAR) to Compare Communication of the Findings of Systematic Reviews to the Public by Plain Language Summary or Video Abstract (SWAR02-2026)

March 23, 2026 updated by: Mike Clarke, Queen's University, Belfast

How Can we Best Communicate the Findings of Systematic Reviews to the Public? A Study Within A Review

A systematic review is a type of research that collects and analyses all the existing studies on a specific topic in a structured and organised way. Instead of just looking at one study, it combines results from many studies to get a clearer, more reliable answer to a question. However, the complex language used in systematic reviews often makes them inaccessible to the public, highlighting the need for effective communication strategies, particularly for reviews relating to health and social care or public health. However, there is limited research exploring alternative ways to present research articles, with only a few delivery methods studied so far. It remains unclear how different styles of communicating might effectively convey scientific findings accurately or enhance public engagement and understanding of complex topics.

Studies Within A Review (SWARs) are studies which are embedded into a systematic review and aim to form an evidence base to improve how we plan, do, and share systematic reviews. SWARs offer a promising way of improving the methodology of systematic reviews and dissemination of their findings.

This randomised trial aims to address the current research gap by identifying the effectiveness of two different ways to communicate systematic review findings to the public and determining which methods are more suitable for different audiences: participants will be asked to read a summary or watch an animated video of a summary of both reviews and then complete a questionnaire about the reviews' findings and conclusions. The study will assess outcomes such as comprehension, perceived understanding, engagement, and interest of participants in reading the full reviews.

By evaluating the impact of different communication strategies, this study aims to strengthen the evidence base for methods to communicate complex scientific findings to the public. The results are expected to provide valuable insights for optimising the communication of the key findings of systematic reviews, ensuring that summaries are clear, engaging and accessible.

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

This randomised Study Within a Review (SWAR) will address the uncertainty in communicating the findings of systematic reviews by comparing the effectiveness of two communication methods. We will evaluate participants' understanding of the key findings from two systematic reviews and their interest in seeking further information. These systematic reviews (summarised below), while covering entirely different topics, are both complex and highly relevant to public health.

Systematic Review 1: Clinical Utility of Biomarkers for Outcomes Prediction in Adults with Suspected Sepsis Presenting to the Emergency Department Sepsis is associated with a high mortality rate, and early detection and diagnosis is crucial. This review aimed to determine whether biomarkers measured in patients presenting to an emergency department with suspected sepsis may predict deterioration, including mortality, critical care admission, organ failure, and septic shock.

Systematic Review 2: Local antibiotics for patients undergoing surgery for open fractures Open fractures are serious injuries where the bone breaks through the skin, often leading to complications like infection. Treating these injuries can be complex and expensive, with many patients needing multiple operations and ongoing care. This review sought to determine if there is evidence that local antibiotics may reduce infection in people who are having surgery for open fractures.

The objectives of this study are

  1. To determine whether a plain language summary or animated video summary is more effective in conveying the core message of a systematic review.
  2. To compare the effects of the two methods on perceived understanding, engagement, and interest in reading the full text of the systematic review

Recruitment plan We will recruit using multiple methods. The study will be advertised through various channels, including posters displayed in common areas of the host university (Queen's University Belfast) and other popular locations across Belfast, social media platforms such as Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIN, and word of mouth. People interested in taking part will be able to contact the research team directly using the provided contact details.

Study procedures Potential participants will email or click on a QR code on the study posters (in person or via social media), which will bring them to the study information and a consent form. They will read that their participation will take a maximum of 30 minutes for the first round, and that they will asked to participate in a second round of questions 1 to 2 weeks later, which can be done via telephone pr email if preferred and would take less than 10 minutes. They will be asked to include their first name or a nick-name and contact details (email or telephone) so that the research team can contact them. Participants will also be asked to answer some additional questions to collect their age, scientific education and whether they had any scientific training after secondary education, and if they feel they know anything about the review topics.

The research team will contact those who have volunteered and have agreed to participate by email or telephone. A meeting will be arranged for a public space where they can sit comfortably with minimal noise and distractions. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups: either the Reading Group or the Video Group (as shown in Table 1). Within each group, participants will be randomly assigned to start with Review 1 or Review 2. Once people are enrolled in the study, they will be assigned a unique ID number.

The intervention will be administered on a tablet computer. Those in the Reading Group will read the summary of their first review on the tablet and then answer related questions. After completing this review, they will read the summary of their second review and answer corresponding questions. Participants in the Video Group will use headphones while watching the Animated Video summary of their first review and then answer related questions on the tablet. After completing that review, they will watch an Animated Video summary of their second review and answer corresponding questions.

Participants will be reminded that they will be contacted for a follow-up assessment 1-2 weeks after the initial session. They will be contacted using the contact method they provided during the consent process. Follow-up can be face-to-face, or by email or phone.

Statistical analysis Participants' responses related to the Plain Language Summary and Animated Video Summary of Review 1 and Review 2 will be compared. Differences between groups will be assessed using the T-test/Mann-Whitney U test (as appropriate). A convenience sample of 100 participants will be sought, based on the time available for the researcher to conduct the data gathering.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

67

Phase

  • Phase 3

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Adults (aged 18 years+)
  • Any gender
  • Able to read and understand English
  • Willing to read and listen to review summaries, and answer questions
  • Provide informed consent to participate

Exclusion Criteria:

  • People with learning difficulty
  • People who do not read or understand English
  • People with hearing or visual impairment
  • People under 18 years of age

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Active Comparator: Reading group
Written summary of a systematic review
Other: Plain language summary
A written summary of the systematic review.
Experimental: Video group
Video summary of a systematic review
Other: Animated video
An animated video summary of the systematic review.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Immediate comprehension of the information presented in the review summary.
Time Frame: Immediately after interaction with the summary.
A multiple-choice question is included to assess participants' understanding of the primary focus of the research by asking them to choose from a list of topics about the focus of the review, only one of which is correct. There are also five questions presented as statements relating to specific content from the review summary and participants are required to indicate whether each statement is true or false. The unit of measure will be the proportion of participants who select the correct answer to each question. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.
Immediately after interaction with the summary.
Retention of the participant's comprehension of the information presented in the review summary
Time Frame: 1 to 2 weeks after interaction with the summary.
Participants will answer the same six questions that were used to assess their comprehension immediately after their interaction with the summary. This will include a multiple-choice question asking them to choose from a list of topics about the focus of the review, only one of which is correct. There are also five questions presented as statements relating to specific content from the review summary and participants are required to indicate whether each statement is true or false. The unit of measure will be the proportion of participants who select the correct answer to each question. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.
1 to 2 weeks after interaction with the summary.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Participant's perceived understanding (i.e. how well they believe they understood the review summary)
Time Frame: Immediately after interaction with the summary.

Participants will be asked to rate their understanding of the review on a 5-point scale: 0 = Not a Bit; 1 = A Bit; 2 = Average; 3 = Mostly; 4 = Very Much.

The unit of measure will be the mean and median for these scores within each intervention group. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.
Immediately after interaction with the summary.
Participant's enjoyment of their interaction with the summary
Time Frame: Immediately after interaction with the summary.

Participants will be asked to rate the extent to which they found the review summary engaging on a 5-point scale: 0 = Not a Bit; 1 = A Bit; 2 = Average; 3 = Mostly; 4 = Very Much.

The unit of measure will be the mean and median for these scores within each intervention group. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.
Immediately after interaction with the summary.
Participant's interest in reading the full text of the systematic review after their interaction with its summary
Time Frame: Immediately after interaction with the summary.

Participants will be asked to rate their interest in finding out more about the systematic review on a 5-point scale: 0 = Not a Bit; 1 = A Bit; 2 = Average; 3 = Mostly; 4 = Very Much.

The unit of measure will be the mean and median for these scores within each intervention group. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.
Immediately after interaction with the summary.

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Queen's University, Belfast

Collaborators

Aberdeen Belfast Evidence Collaboration

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Helpful Links

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Actual)

January 15, 2026

Primary Completion (Actual)

March 18, 2026

Study Completion (Actual)

March 18, 2026

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

December 18, 2025

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 5, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

January 12, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

March 24, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 23, 2026

Last Verified

March 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Other Study ID Numbers

  • SWAR02-2026

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

UNDECIDED

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Behavioral Changes

Clinical Trials on Plain language summary

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in India

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Subscribe