Croatian Association for the Promotion of Patients' Rights, Split, Croatia.
School of Computer Science, Technological University Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Apr 5;19(1):75. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0716-x.
Although subjective expressions and linguistic fluency have been shown as important factors in processing and interpreting textual facts, analyses of these traits in textual health information for different audiences are lacking. We analyzed the readability and linguistic psychological and emotional characteristics of different textual summary formats of Cochrane systematic reviews.
We performed a multitrait-multimethod cross-sectional study of Press releases available at Cochrane web site (n = 162) and corresponding Scientific abstracts (n = 158), Cochrane Clinical Answers (n = 35) and Plain language summaries in English (n = 156), French (n = 101), German (n = 41) and Croatian (n = 156). We used SMOG index to assess text readability of all text formats, and natural language processing tools (IBM Watson Tone Analyzer, Stanford NLP Sentiment Analysis and Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count) to examine the affective states and subjective information in texts of Scientific abstracts, Plain language summaries and Press releases.
All text formats had low readability, with SMOG index ranging from a median of 15.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.3-15.9) for Scientific abstracts to 14.7 (95% CI 14.4-15.0) for Plain language summaries. In all text formats, "Sadness" was the most dominantly perceived emotional tone and the style of writing was perceived as "Analytical" and "Tentative". At the psychological level, all text formats exhibited the predominant "Openness" tone, and Press releases scored higher on the scales of "Conscientiousness", "Agreeableness" and "Emotional range". Press releases had significantly higher scores than Scientific abstracts and Plain language summaries on the dimensions of "Clout", and "Emotional tone".
Although the readability of Plain language summaries was higher than that of text formats targeting more expert audiences, the required literacy was much higher than the recommended US 6th grade level. The language of Press releases was generally more engaging than that of Scientific abstracts and Plain language summaries, which are written by the authors of systematic reviews. Preparation of textual summaries about health evidence for different audiences should take into account readers' subjective experiences to encourage cognitive processing and reaction to the provided information.
尽管在处理和解释文本事实时，主观表达和语言流畅性已被证明是重要因素，但针对不同受众的文本健康信息中这些特征的分析尚缺乏。我们分析了 Cochrane 系统评价不同文本摘要格式的可阅读性和语言心理及情感特征。
我们对 Cochrane 网站上的新闻稿（n=162）和相应的科学摘要（n=158）、Cochrane 临床解答（n=35）以及英文（n=156）、法文（n=101）、德文（n=41）和克罗地亚文（n=156）的简明语言摘要进行了一项多特质-多方法的横断面研究。我们使用 SMOG 指数评估所有文本格式的文本可读性，并用自然语言处理工具（IBM Watson Tone Analyzer、斯坦福自然语言处理情感分析和语言查询与词汇计数）来检查科学摘要、简明语言摘要和新闻稿文本中的情感状态和主观信息。
所有文本格式的可读性均较低，SMOG 指数中位数范围为科学摘要 15.6（95%置信区间 15.3-15.9）到简明语言摘要 14.7（95%置信区间 14.4-15.0）。在所有文本格式中，“悲伤”是最主要的感知情绪基调，写作风格被认为是“分析性”和“试探性”。在心理层面上，所有文本格式都表现出主要的“开放性”基调，新闻稿在“尽责性”、“宜人性”和“情绪范围”等方面的得分更高。新闻稿在“影响力”和“情感基调”维度上的得分明显高于科学摘要和简明语言摘要。
尽管简明语言摘要的可读性高于面向更专业受众的文本格式，但所需的读写能力远高于美国推荐的 6 年级水平。新闻稿的语言通常比由系统评价作者撰写的科学摘要和简明语言摘要更具吸引力，为不同受众准备健康证据的文本摘要时，应考虑读者的主观体验，以鼓励对提供的信息进行认知处理和反应。
