Effectiveness and acceptability of methods of communicating the results of clinical research to lay and professional audiences: protocol for a systematic review
Abstract Background Phase III randomised controlled trials aim not just to increase the sum of human knowledge, but also to improve treatment, care or prevention for future patients through changing policy and practice. To achieve this, the results need to be communicated effectively to several audi...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2019-06-01
|
| Series: | Systematic Reviews |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13643-019-1065-x |
| _version_ | 1818203389335437312 |
|---|---|
| author | Annabelle South Julia Bailey Mahesh K. B. Parmar Claire L. Vale |
| author_facet | Annabelle South Julia Bailey Mahesh K. B. Parmar Claire L. Vale |
| author_sort | Annabelle South |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Phase III randomised controlled trials aim not just to increase the sum of human knowledge, but also to improve treatment, care or prevention for future patients through changing policy and practice. To achieve this, the results need to be communicated effectively to several audiences. It is unclear how best to do this while not wasting scarce resources or causing avoidable distress or confusion. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the effectiveness, acceptability and resource implications of different methods of communication of clinical research results to lay or professional audiences, to inform practice. Methods We will systematically review the published literature from 2000 to 2018 for reports of approaches for communicating clinical study results to lay audiences (patients, participants, carers and the wider public) or professional audiences (clinicians, policymakers, guideline developers, other medical professionals). We will search Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ASSIA, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and grey literature sources. One reviewer will screen titles and abstracts for potential eligibility, discarding only those that are clearly irrelevant. Potentially relevant full texts will then be assessed for inclusion by two reviewers. Data extraction will be carried out by one reviewer using EPPI-Reviewer. Risk of bias will be assessed using the relevant Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, ROBINS-1, AXIS Appraisal Tool or Critical Appraisals Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist, depending on study design. We will decide whether to meta-analyse data based on whether the included trials are similar enough in terms of participants, settings, intervention, comparison and outcome measures to allow meaningful conclusions from a statistically pooled result. We will present the data in tables and narratively summarise the results. We will use thematic synthesis for qualitative studies. Discussion Developing the search strategy for this review has been challenging as many of the concepts (patients, clinicians, clinical studies, and communication) are widely used in literature that is not relevant for inclusion in our review. We expect there will be limited comparative evidence, spread over a wide range of approaches, comparators and populations and, therefore, do not anticipate being able to carry out meta-analysis. Systematic review registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (CRD42019137364). |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-12T03:24:34Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1604eae84b9c4d39bfc9c3598c5494a0 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2046-4053 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-12T03:24:34Z |
| publishDate | 2019-06-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Systematic Reviews |
| spelling | doaj.art-1604eae84b9c4d39bfc9c3598c5494a02022-12-22T00:40:05ZengBMCSystematic Reviews2046-40532019-06-01811810.1186/s13643-019-1065-xEffectiveness and acceptability of methods of communicating the results of clinical research to lay and professional audiences: protocol for a systematic reviewAnnabelle South0Julia Bailey1Mahesh K. B. Parmar2Claire L. Vale3MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL and Department of Primary Care and Population Health, UCLDepartment of Primary Care and Public Health, UCLMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCLMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCLAbstract Background Phase III randomised controlled trials aim not just to increase the sum of human knowledge, but also to improve treatment, care or prevention for future patients through changing policy and practice. To achieve this, the results need to be communicated effectively to several audiences. It is unclear how best to do this while not wasting scarce resources or causing avoidable distress or confusion. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the effectiveness, acceptability and resource implications of different methods of communication of clinical research results to lay or professional audiences, to inform practice. Methods We will systematically review the published literature from 2000 to 2018 for reports of approaches for communicating clinical study results to lay audiences (patients, participants, carers and the wider public) or professional audiences (clinicians, policymakers, guideline developers, other medical professionals). We will search Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ASSIA, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and grey literature sources. One reviewer will screen titles and abstracts for potential eligibility, discarding only those that are clearly irrelevant. Potentially relevant full texts will then be assessed for inclusion by two reviewers. Data extraction will be carried out by one reviewer using EPPI-Reviewer. Risk of bias will be assessed using the relevant Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool, ROBINS-1, AXIS Appraisal Tool or Critical Appraisals Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist, depending on study design. We will decide whether to meta-analyse data based on whether the included trials are similar enough in terms of participants, settings, intervention, comparison and outcome measures to allow meaningful conclusions from a statistically pooled result. We will present the data in tables and narratively summarise the results. We will use thematic synthesis for qualitative studies. Discussion Developing the search strategy for this review has been challenging as many of the concepts (patients, clinicians, clinical studies, and communication) are widely used in literature that is not relevant for inclusion in our review. We expect there will be limited comparative evidence, spread over a wide range of approaches, comparators and populations and, therefore, do not anticipate being able to carry out meta-analysis. Systematic review registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (CRD42019137364).http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13643-019-1065-xCommunicationDisseminationClinical studiesPatientsMedical professionalsPolicymakers |
| spellingShingle | Annabelle South Julia Bailey Mahesh K. B. Parmar Claire L. Vale Effectiveness and acceptability of methods of communicating the results of clinical research to lay and professional audiences: protocol for a systematic review Systematic Reviews Communication Dissemination Clinical studies Patients Medical professionals Policymakers |
| title | Effectiveness and acceptability of methods of communicating the results of clinical research to lay and professional audiences: protocol for a systematic review |
| title_full | Effectiveness and acceptability of methods of communicating the results of clinical research to lay and professional audiences: protocol for a systematic review |
| title_fullStr | Effectiveness and acceptability of methods of communicating the results of clinical research to lay and professional audiences: protocol for a systematic review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Effectiveness and acceptability of methods of communicating the results of clinical research to lay and professional audiences: protocol for a systematic review |
| title_short | Effectiveness and acceptability of methods of communicating the results of clinical research to lay and professional audiences: protocol for a systematic review |
| title_sort | effectiveness and acceptability of methods of communicating the results of clinical research to lay and professional audiences protocol for a systematic review |
| topic | Communication Dissemination Clinical studies Patients Medical professionals Policymakers |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13643-019-1065-x |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT annabellesouth effectivenessandacceptabilityofmethodsofcommunicatingtheresultsofclinicalresearchtolayandprofessionalaudiencesprotocolforasystematicreview AT juliabailey effectivenessandacceptabilityofmethodsofcommunicatingtheresultsofclinicalresearchtolayandprofessionalaudiencesprotocolforasystematicreview AT maheshkbparmar effectivenessandacceptabilityofmethodsofcommunicatingtheresultsofclinicalresearchtolayandprofessionalaudiencesprotocolforasystematicreview AT clairelvale effectivenessandacceptabilityofmethodsofcommunicatingtheresultsofclinicalresearchtolayandprofessionalaudiencesprotocolforasystematicreview |