Presenting the Results of Cochrane Systematic Reviews to a Consumer Audience: A Qualitative Study

Medical Decision Making - Tập 30 Số 5 - Trang 566-577 - 2010
Claire Glenton1, Nancy Santesso2, Sarah Rosenbaum3, Elin Strømme Nilsen2, Tamara Rader4, Agustín Ciapponi5, Helen Dilkes6
1Norwegian Branch of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway,
2Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Bio-statistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
3Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway
4Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
5Argentine Cochrane Centre IECS, Institute of Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy, Buenos Aires, Argentina
6Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group, Centre for Health Communication and Participation, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia

Tóm tắt

Objective. To develop and obtain feedback about a summary format for Cochrane reviews that is accessible to a consumer audience, without oversimplification or incorrect presentation. Methods. We developed 3 versions of a Plain Language Summary (PLS) format of a Cochrane Systematic Review. Using a semi-structured interview guide we tested these versions among 34 members of the public in Norway, Argentina, Canada, and Australia. The authors analyzed feedback, identified problems, and generated new solutions before retesting to produce a final version of a Plain Language Summary format. Results. Participants preferred results presented as words, supplemented by numbers in a table. There was a lack of understanding regarding the difference between a review and an individual study, that the effect is rarely an exact number, that evidence can be of low or high quality, and that level of quality is a separate issue from intervention effect. Participants also found it difficult to move between presentations of dichotomous and continuous outcomes. Rephrasing the introduction helped participants grasp the concept of a review. Confidence intervals were largely ignored or misunderstood. Our attempts to explain them were only partially successful. Text modifiers (‘‘probably,’’ ‘‘may’’) to convey different levels of quality were only partially understood, whereas symbols with explanations were more helpful. Participants often understood individual information elements about effect size and quality of these results, but did not always actively merge these elements. Conclusion. Through testing and iteration the authors identified and addressed several problems, using explanations, rephrasing, and symbols to present scientific concepts. Other problems remain, including how best to present confidence intervals and continuous outcomes. Future research should also test information elements in combination rather than in isolation. The new Plain Language Summary format is being evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1017/S0266462300012204

10.1002/9780470712184

Falck-Ytter C., 2004, The quality of Cochrane synopses-a quality assessment pilot project

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.013

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.014

10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00196.x

10.1186/1472-6963-6-34

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.12.011

Santesso N., 2006, J Rheumatol, 33, 2312

10.1111/j.1365-2753.2005.00596.x

10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00051-X

Akl E., Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

10.1177/0272989X03261566

10.7326/0003-4819-150-8-200904210-00106

10.1177/0272989X07307271

10.1177/0272989X07307270

10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD

10.1186/1472-6947-5-7

Burkell J., 2004, J Med Libr Assoc, 92, 200

Cox R., 1995, Int J Artif Intell Educ, 6, 239

10.1016/S0360-1315(99)00029-9

10.1136/bmj.332.7549.1080

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Medical Decision Making

Tập 30 Số 5

566-577

Thông tin tác giả