Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objectives This study aimed to investigate whether the format and type of conclusion in Cochrane plain language summaries (PLSs) influence readers’ perception of treatment benefit and decision-making.
Design An online parallel group, three-arm randomised controlled trial was conducted.
Setting The study was conducted online.
Participants The participants were physiotherapy students.
Interventions The participants read two Cochrane PLSs, one with a positive conclusion (strong evidence of benefit) and another with a negative conclusion (strong evidence of non-benefit). Each participant read the results of both reviews presented in one of three formats: (1) numerical, (2) textual or (3) numerical and textual.
Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was the participants’ perception of treatment benefit.
Results All three groups of participants perceived the treatment to have positive effects when the Cochrane PLS had a positive conclusion, regardless of the format of presentation (mean perception of treatment benefit score: textual 7.7 (SD 2.3), numerical 7.9 (SD 1.8), numerical and textual 7.7 (SD 1.7), p=0.362). However, when the Cochrane PLS had a negative conclusion, all three groups of participants failed to perceive a negative effect (mean perception of treatment benefit score: textual 5.5 (SD 3.3), numerical 5.6 (SD 2.7), numerical and textual 5.9 (SD 2.8), p=0.019).
Conclusions The format of Cochrane PLSs does not appear to significantly impact physiotherapy students’ perception of treatment benefit, understanding of evidence, persuasiveness or confidence in their decision. However, participants’ perception of treatment benefit does not align with the conclusion when the Cochrane PLS indicates strong evidence of non-benefit from the intervention.
Trial registration number CTRI/2022/10/046476.
- Evidence-Based Practice
- Methods
- Quality of Health Care
- Rehabillitation
- PUBLIC HEALTH
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request.
Footnotes
Contributors Concept/idea/research design: VP, KG, GS, PT and ST. Writing: VP, KG, GS, PT and ST. Data collection: KG, GS, PT and ST. Data analysis and interpretation: VP, KG, GS, PT and ST. Project management: VP. Providing facilities/equipment: VP. Providing institutional liaisons: VP consultation (including review of manuscript before submitting): VP, KG, GS, PT and ST. VP is the guarantor and attests that all authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.