Comparison of blogshots with plain language summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews: a qualitative study and randomized trial

Ivan Buljan, Ružica Tokalić, Marija Roguljić, Irena Zakarija-Grković, Davorka Vrdoljak, Petra Milić, Livia Puljak, Ana Marušić, Ivan Buljan, Ružica Tokalić, Marija Roguljić, Irena Zakarija-Grković, Davorka Vrdoljak, Petra Milić, Livia Puljak, Ana Marušić

Abstract

Background: Cochrane, an organization dedicated to the production and dissemination of high-quality evidence on health, endeavors to reach consumers by developing appropriate summary formats of its systematic reviews. However, the optimal type of presentation of evidence to consumers is still unknown.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate consumer preferences for different summary formats of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs), using both qualitative and quantitative approaches.

Methods: Initially, we conducted three focus groups with medical students (n = 7), doctors (n = 4), and patients (n = 9) in 2017 to explore their health information search habits and preferences for CSR summary formats. Based on those findings, we conducted a randomized trial with medical students at the University of Split School of Medicine, Croatia, and with patients from three Dalmatian family practices to determine whether they prefer CSR blogshots (n = 115) or CSR plain language summaries (PLSs; n = 123).

Results: Participants in the focus groups favored brief and explicit CSR summary formats with fewer numbers. Although we found no difference in participants' preferences for a specific summary format in the overall sample, subgroup analysis showed that patients preferred blogshots over PLSs in comparison to medical students (P = 0.003, eta squared effect size η2 = 0.04).

Conclusion: CSR summaries should be produced in a format that meets the expectations and needs of consumers. Use of blogshots as a summary format could enhance the dissemination of CSRs among patients.

Trial registration: The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03542201. Registered on May 31st 2018.

Keywords: Evidence-based medicine; Health communication; Medical decision making; Patient education.

Conflict of interest statement

All authors are members of Cochrane Croatia. AM is a Co-chair of Cochrane’s Scientific Committee. The authors declare they do not have any other actual or potential conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of participants in study comparing Cochrane plain language summaries and Cochrane blogshots

References

    1. Kurtzman ET, Greene J. Effective presentation of health care performance information for consumer decision making: A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99:36–43. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.07.030.
    1. Ryan R, Santesso N, Lowe D, Hill S, Grimshaw JM, Prictor M, et al. Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(4):CD007768.
    1. Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(1):CD001431.
    1. Nilsen ES, Myrhaug HT, Johansen M, Oliver S, Oxman AD. Methods of consumer involvement in developing healthcare policy and research, clinical practice guidelines and patient information material. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(3):CD004563.
    1. Car J, Lang B, College A, Ung C, Majeed A. Interventions for enhancing consumers’ online health literacy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(6):CD007092.
    1. Rosenbaum S, Oxman AD, Lewin S, Glenton C, Opiyo N, Sheppard S. User and producer-friendly formatting of cochrane reviews. Edinburgh: Cochrane Colloquium Edinburgh; 2018.
    1. Jelicic Kadic A, Fidahic M, Vujcic M, Saric F, Propadalo I, Marelja I, et al. Cochrane plain language summaries are highly heterogeneous with low adherence to the standards. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:61. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0162-y.
    1. Crick K, Hartling L. Preferences of knowledge users for two formats of summarizing results from systematic reviews: infographics and critical appraisals. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0140029. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140029.
    1. Buljan I, Malički M, Wager E, Puljak L, Hren D, Kellie F, et al. No difference in knowledge obtained from infographic or plain language summary of a Cochrane systematic review: three randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;97:86–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.003.
    1. Cochrane UK . Blogshot & infographic archive. 2017.
    1. Hutton EK, Hofmeyr GJ, Dowswell T. External cephalic version for breech presentation before term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(10):CD000084.
    1. Hofmeyr GJ, Kulier R, West HM. External cephalic version for breech presentation at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(4):CD000083.
    1. Huang R. RQDA: R-based qualitative data analysis. 2018.
    1. Boeije H. A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Qual Quant. 2002;36:391–409. doi: 10.1023/A:1020909529486.
    1. Stephens G, Derry S, Moore RA. Paracetamol (acetaminophen) for acute treatment of episodic tension-type headache in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(6):CD011889.
    1. Avenell A, Mak JC, O'Connell D. Vitamin D and vitamin D analogues for preventing fractures in post-menopausal women and older men. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(4):CD000227.
    1. IBM Watson Developer Cloud. Tone analyzer. Available at: Accessed 30 Aug 2018.
    1. Karačić J, Dondio P, Buljan I, Hren D, Marušić A. Languages for different health information readers: multitrait-multimethod content analysis of Cochrane systematic reviews textual summary formats. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:75. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0716-x.
    1. Schapira MM, Walker CM, Cappaert KJ, Ganschow PS, Fletcher KE, et al. The numeracy understanding in medicine instrument: a measure of health numeracy developed using item response theory. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32:851–865. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12447239.
    1. Chen YY, Li CM, Liang JC, Tsai CC. Health information obtained from the internet and changes in medical decision making: questionnaire development and cross-sectional survey. J Med Int Res. 2018;20:e47.
    1. Nejašmić D, Miošić I, Vrdoljak D, Permozer Hajdarović S, Tomičić M, Gmajnić R, et al. Awareness and use of evidence-based medicine information among patients in Croatia: a nation-wide cross-sectional study. Croat Med J. 2017;58:300–309. doi: 10.3325/cmj.2017.58.300.
    1. Stark R, Helenius IM, Schimming LM, Takahara N, Kronish I, Korenstein D. Real-time EBM: from bed board to keyboard and back. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22:1656–1660. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0387-x.
    1. Johnston BC, Alonso-Coello P, Friedrich JO, Mustafa RA, Tikkinen KA, Neumann I, et al. Do clinicians understand the size of treatment effects? A randomized survey across 8 countries. CMAJ. 2016;188:25–32. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.150430.
    1. Testing treatments interactive. Promoting critical thinking about treatment claims. Available at: Accessed 12 Jan 2019.
    1. Nsangi A, Semakula D, Oxman AD, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Oxman M, Rosenbaum S, et al. Effects of the Informed Health Choices primary school intervention on the ability of children in Uganda to assess the reliability of claims about treatment effects: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;390:374–388. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31226-6.
    1. Davis K, Minckas N, Bond V, Clark CJ, Colbourn T, Drabble SJ, et al. Beyond interviews and focus groups: a framework for integrating innovative qualitative methods into randomised controlled trials of complex public health interventions. Trials. 2019;20(1):329. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3439-8.
    1. Kripalani S, Heerman WJ, Patel NJ, Jackson N, Goggins K, Rothman RL, et al. Association of health literacy and numeracy with interest in research participation. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:544–545. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4766-2.
    1. Buljan I, Jerončić A, Malički M, Marušić M, Marušić A. How to choose an evidence-based medicine knowledge test for medical students? Comparison of three knowledge measures. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18:290. doi: 10.1186/s12909-018-1391-z.
    1. Glass DC, Kelsall HL, Slegers C, Forbes AB, Loff B, Zion D, Fritschi L. A telephone survey of factors affecting willingness to participate in health research surveys. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:1017. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2350-9.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다