UCL Discovery
UCL home » Library Services » Electronic resources » UCL Discovery

Effectiveness and acceptability of methods of communicating the results of clinical research to lay and professional audiences: protocol for a systematic review

South, A; Bailey, J; Parmar, MKB; Vale, CL; (2019) Effectiveness and acceptability of methods of communicating the results of clinical research to lay and professional audiences: protocol for a systematic review. Systematic Reviews , 8 , Article 150. 10.1186/s13643-019-1065-x. Green open access

[thumbnail of s13643-019-1065-x.pdf]
Preview
Text
s13643-019-1065-x.pdf - Published Version

Download (714kB) | Preview

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.

Type: Article
Title: Effectiveness and acceptability of methods of communicating the results of clinical research to lay and professional audiences: protocol for a systematic review
Open access status: An open access version is available from UCL Discovery
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-1065-x
Publisher version: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1065-x
Language: English
Additional information: © The Author(s) 2019. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creative commons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Keywords: Clinical studies, Communication, Dissemination, Medical professionals, Patients, Policymakers
UCL classification: UCL
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Inst of Clinical Trials and Methodology
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Inst of Clinical Trials and Methodology > MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Institute of Epidemiology and Health
UCL > Provost and Vice Provost Offices > School of Life and Medical Sciences > Faculty of Population Health Sciences > Institute of Epidemiology and Health > Primary Care and Population Health
URI: https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10077315
Downloads since deposit
81Downloads
Download activity - last month
Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads by country - last 12 months

Archive Staff Only

View Item View Item