Practices and Barriers in Developing and Disseminating Plain-Language Resources Reporting Medical Research Information: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The intent of plain-language resources (PLRs) reporting medical research information is to advance health literacy among the general public and enable them to participate in shared decision-making (SDM). Regulatory mandates coupled with academic and industry initiatives have given rise to an increasing volume of PLRs summarizing medical research information. However, there is significant variability in the quality, format, readability, and dissemination channels for PLRs. In this scoping review, we identify current practices, guidance, and barriers in developing and disseminating PLRs reporting medical research information to the general public including patients and caregivers. We also report on the PLR preferences of these intended audiences. METHODS: A literature search of three bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science) and three clinical trial registries (NIH, EMA, ISRCTN registry) was performed. Snowball searches within reference lists of primary articles were added. Articles with PLRs or reporting topics related to PLRs use and development available between January 2017 and June 2023 were identified. Evidence mapping and synthesis were used to make qualitative observations. Identified PLRs were quantitatively assessed, including temporal annual trends, availability by field of medicine, language, and publisher types. RESULTS: A total of 9116 PLRs were identified, 9041 from the databases and 75 from clinical trial registries. The final analysis included 6590 PLRs from databases and 72 from registries. Reported barriers to PLR development included ambiguity in guidance, lack of incentives, and concerns of researchers writing for the general public. Available guidance recommendations called for greater dissemination, increased readability, and varied content formats. Patients preferred visual PLRs formats (e.g., videos, comics), which were easy to access on the internet and used short jargon-free text. In some instances, older audiences and more educated readers preferred text-only PLRs. Preferences among the general public were mostly similar to those of patients. Psychology, followed by oncology, showed the highest number of PLRs, predominantly from academia-sponsored research. Text-only PLRs were most commonly available, while graphical, digital, or online formats were less available. Preferred dissemination channels included paywall-free journal websites, indexing on PubMed, third-party websites, via email to research participants, and social media. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review maps current practices, recommendations, and patients' and the general public's preferences for PLR development and dissemination. The results suggest that making PLRs available to a wider audience by improving nomenclature, accessibility, and providing translations may contribute to empowerment and SDM. Minimizing variability among available guidance for PLR development may play an important role in amplifying the value and impact of these resources.

Plain-language resources (PLRs) can help people understand medical research information. This will allow them to make informed decisions about their health. However, PLRs vary in quality, format, and ways in which they are shared. In this study, researchers looked at how PLRs are made and publicly shared. They also studied what makes PLRs useful for the public and patients. Creating PLRs is not easy because of unclear guidelines on writing for the public. Using different formats and languages can make PLRs readable. Patients preferred PLRs as videos and comics. Older and educated readers liked text-only PLRs. The fields of psychology and oncology had the highest number of PLRs. Text-only PLRs were more common than digital or online formats. PLRs should be easily and freely accessible. Open-access journal websites, PubMed, third-party websites, email, and social media can be used to share PLRs. This study showed that PLRs can be helpful, but there are challenges in creating and sharing them. Good PLRs can inform patients and help them make better health-related decisions.

Publishing clinical trial results in plain language: a clash of ethical principles?

Plain language resources (PLR) are lay summaries of clinical trial results or plain language summaries of publications, in digital/visual/language formats. They aim to provide accurate information in jargon-free, and easy-to-understand language that can meet the health information needs of the general public, especially patients and caregivers. These are typically developed by the study sponsors or investigators, or by national public health bodies, research hospitals, patient organizations, and non-profit organizations. While the usefulness of PLR seems unequivocal, they have never been analyzed from the perspective of ethics. In this commentary, we do so and reflect on whether PLR are categorically advantageous or if they solve certain issues but raise new problems at the same time. Ethical concerns that PLR can potentially address include but are not limited to individual and community level health literacy, patient empowerment and autonomy. We also highlight the ethical issues that PLR may potentially exacerbate, such as fair balanced presentation and interpretation of medical knowledge, positive publication bias, and equitable access to information. PLR are important resources for patients, with promising implications for individual as well as community health. However, they require appropriate oversight and standards to optimize their potential value. Hence, we also highlight recommendations and best practices from our reading of the literature, that aim to minimize these biases.

Plain language resources (PLR) are a way to make medical research information easier for everyone to understand.They can be summaries of clinical trial results, articles, or presentations. PLR can also be made as videos, brochures, or infographics.They can help patients understand their health better and take care of themselves. However, there are some things to be careful about.PLR may only report the good results and not mention the negative ones, which could be biased.Also, some people with disabilities or who don't speak the language well might have a hard time understanding PLR.To make sure PLR are helpful and fair, there should be standard guidelines for how they are made and shared. This will make sure that PLR are useful and don't cause any problems.

Measuring the impact of scientific publications and publication extenders: examples of novel approaches.

Different stakeholders, such as authors, research institutions, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) may determine the impact of peer-reviewed publications in different ways. Commonly-used measures of research impact, such as the Journal Impact Factor or the H-index, are not designed to evaluate the impact of individual articles. They are heavily dependent on citations, and therefore only measure impact of the overall journal or researcher respectively, taking months or years to accrue. The past decade has seen the development of article-level metrics (ALMs), that measure the online attention received by an individual publication in contexts including social media platforms, news media, citation activity, and policy and patent citations. These new tools can complement traditional bibliometric data and provide a more holistic evaluation of the impact of a publication. This commentary discusses the need for ALMs, and summarizes several examples - PlumX Metrics, Altmetric, the Better Article Metrics score, the EMPIRE Index, and scite. We also discuss how metrics may be used to evaluate the value of "publication extenders" - educational microcontent such as animations, videos and plain-language summaries that are often hosted on HCP education platforms. Publication extenders adapt a publication's key data to audience needs and thereby extend a publication's reach. These new approaches have the potential to address the limitations of traditional metrics, but the diversity of new metrics requires that users have a keen understanding of which forms of impact are relevant to a specific publication and select and monitor ALMs accordingly.

Different readers have different ways of deciding how important scientific articles are. The usual methods used to measure the impact of research, like the Journal Impact Factor or the H-index, are not meant to measure this for individual articles. These methods mainly look at how many times the articles are mentioned by others, and it can take a long time to see the impact.But in the past ten years, new tools called article-level metrics (ALMs) have been created. These tools measure how much attention an article gets online, like on social media, in the news, or when other researchers talk about it. ALMs are better at explaining how important a specific article is. They can work together with the usual methods to measure impact.This paper talks about why ALMs are important and gives examples of these tools, like PlumX Metrics, Altmetric, the Better Article Metrics score, the EMPIRE Index, and scite. It also explains how these tools can help us see the value of animations, videos, or summaries in simple language. These make it easier for more people to understand and learn from the articles.These new ways of measuring impact can help us see how important articles are in a more complete way. But because there are many different ways to measure this, it's important for users to understand which methods are relevant for a specific article and keep track of them.

Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications.

Article-level measures of publication impact (alternative metrics or altmetrics) can help authors and other stakeholders assess engagement with their research and the success of their communication efforts. The wide variety of altmetrics can make interpretation and comparative assessment difficult; available summary tools are either narrowly focused or do not reflect the differing values of metrics from a stakeholder perspective. We created the EMPIRE (EMpirical Publication Impact and Reach Evaluation) Index, a value-based, multi-component metric framework for medical publications. Metric weighting and grouping were informed by a statistical analysis of 2891 Phase III clinical trial publications and by a panel of stakeholders who provided value assessments. The EMPIRE Index comprises three component scores (social, scholarly, and societal impact), each incorporating related altmetrics indicating a different aspect of engagement with the publication. These are averaged to provide a total impact score and benchmarked so that a score of 100 equals the mean scores of Phase III clinical trial publications in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 2016. Predictor metrics are defined to estimate likely long-term impact. The social impact component correlated strongly with the Altmetric Attention Score and the scholarly impact component correlated modestly with CiteScore, with the societal impact component providing unique insights. Analysis of fresh metrics collected 1 year after the initial dataset, including an independent sample, showed that scholarly and societal impact scores continued to increase, whereas social impact scores did not. Analysis of NEJM 'notable articles' showed that observational studies had the highest total impact and component scores, except for societal impact, for which surgical studies had the highest score. The EMPIRE Index provides a richer assessment of publication value than standalone traditional and alternative metrics and may enable medical researchers to assess the impact of publications easily and to understand what characterizes impactful research.

Frontiers in hemodialysis: Innovations and technological advances.

As increasing demand for hemodialysis (HD) treatment incurs significant financial burden to healthcare systems and ecological burden as well, novel therapeutic approaches as well as innovations and technological advances are being sought that could lead to the development of purification devices such as dialyzers with improved characteristics and wearable technology. Novel knowledge such as the development of more accurate kinetic models, the development of novel HD membranes with the use of nanotechnology, novel manufacturing processes, and the latest technology in the science of materials have enabled novel solutions already marketed or on the verge of becoming commercially available. This collaborative article reviews the latest advances in HD as they were presented by the authors in a recent symposium titled "Frontiers in Haemodialysis," held on 12th December 2019 at the Royal Society of Medicine in London.

Biomimetic Silicification on Membrane Surface for Highly Efficient Treatments of Both Oil-in-Water Emulsion and Protein Wastewater.

The worldwide water crisis and water pollution have put forward great challenges to the current membrane technology. Although poly(vinylidene fluoride) (PVDF) porous membranes can find diverse applications for water treatments, the inherent hydrophilicity must be tuned for an energy-/time-saving process. Herein, the surface wettability of PVDF membranes transforming from highly hydrophobicity to highly hydrophilicity was realized via one-step reaction of plant-derived phenol gallic acid and γ-aminopropyltriethoxysilane in aqueous solutions. The surface hydrophilicization can be achieved on porous PVDF membranes by virtue of integration of a mussel-inspired coating and in situ silicification via a "pyrogallol-amino covalent bridge" toward excellent antifouling performance and highly efficient infiltration ability for oily emulsion and protein wastewater treatment. The water flux of a surface-manipulated microfiltration membrane can reach ca. 9246 L m-2 h-1 (54-fold increment compared to that of pristine membrane), oil rejection >99.5% in a three-cycle emulsion separation; the modified ultrafiltration membrane demonstrated benign performance in bovine serum albumin protein interception (rejection as high as ca. 96.6% with water flux of ca. 278.2 L m-2 h-1) and antifouling potential (increase of ca. 70.8%). Our in situ biomimetic silicification under "green" conditions exhibits the great potential of the developed strategy in fabrication of similar multifunctional membranes toward environmental remediation.

Mixed-matrix membranes with enhanced antifouling activity: probing the surface-tailoring potential of Tiron and chromotropic acid for nano-TiO2.

Mixed-matrix membranes (MMMs) were developed by impregnating organofunctionalized nanoadditives within fouling-susceptible polysulfone matrix following the non-solvent induced phase separation (NIPS) method. The facile functionalization of nanoparticles of anatase TiO2 (nano-TiO2) by using two different organoligands, viz. Tiron and chromotropic acid, was carried out to obtain organofunctionalized nanoadditives, FT-nano-TiO2 and FC-nano-TiO2, respectively. The structural features of nanoadditives were evaluated by X-ray diffraction, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, Raman and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, which established that Tiron leads to the blending of chelating and bridging bidentate geometries for FT-nano-TiO2, whereas chromotropic acid produces bridging bidentate as well as monodentate geometries for FC-nano-TiO2. The surface chemistry of the studied membranes, polysulfone (Psf): FT-nano-TiO2 UF and Psf: FC-nano-TiO2 UF, was profoundly influenced by the benign distributions of the nanoadditives enriched with distinctly charged sites ([Formula: see text]), as evidenced by superior morphology, improved topography, enhanced surface hydrophilicity and altered electrokinetic features. The membranes exhibited enhanced solvent throughputs, viz. 3500-4000 and 3400-4300 LMD at 1 bar of transmembrane pressure, without significant compromise in their rejection attributes. The flux recovery ratios and fouling resistive behaviours of MMMs towards bovine serum albumin indicated that the nanoadditives could impart stable and appreciable antifouling activity, potentially aiding in a sustainable ultrafiltration performance.