• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

卫生期刊中发表的通俗易懂的摘要是否按照说明和健康素养原则撰写?系统环境扫描。

Are plain language summaries published in health journals written according to instructions and health literacy principles? A systematic environmental scan.

机构信息

Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2024 Nov 27;14(11):e086464. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086464.

DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086464
PMID:39608994
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11603698/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Plain language summaries (PLSs) are easy-to-understand summaries of research articles that should follow principles of plain language and health literacy. PLS author instructions from health journals help guide authors on word count/PLS length, structure and the use of jargon. However, it is unclear whether published PLSs currently adhere to author instructions.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to determine (1) the degree of compliance of published PLSs against the PLS author instructions in health journals and (2) the extent to which PLSs meet health literacy principles.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a three-part systematic environmental scan.

METHODS

We examined 26 health journals identified from a previous review. In part 1, we assessed the inclusion frequency of PLSs in the 26 journals; in part 2, we assessed the level of compliance of PLSs with PLS author instructions; and in part 3, we conducted a health literacy assessment of the PLSs.

RESULTS

Part 1: we found PLSs for 20/26 (76.9%) included journals. Part 2: no journal achieved 100% compliance with PLS author instructions. The highest level was 86% and the lowest was 0%. Part 3: no PLS was written at a readability level suitable for a general audience. The mean reading level was grade 15.8 (range 10.2-21.2and mean percentage of complex words, 31% (range 8.5%-49.8%).

DISCUSSION

PLSs are an important means through which consumers can access research findings. We found a lack of compliance between PLS author instructions and PLSs published in health journals that may impede access and use by consumers. This study highlights the need for better ways to support authors adhere to PLS instructions and improved monitoring by journals.

摘要

背景

通俗易懂的摘要(PLS)是对研究文章的简单易懂的总结,应遵循通俗易懂和健康素养的原则。健康期刊的 PLS 作者指南有助于指导作者控制字数/PLS 长度、结构和使用行话。然而,目前发表的 PLS 是否符合作者指南尚不清楚。

目的

本研究旨在确定(1)发表的 PLS 与健康期刊 PLS 作者指南的符合程度,以及(2)PLS 符合健康素养原则的程度。

研究设计

我们进行了三部分系统环境扫描。

方法

我们检查了之前综述中确定的 26 种健康期刊。在第 1 部分中,我们评估了 26 种期刊中 PLS 的纳入频率;在第 2 部分中,我们评估了 PLS 与 PLS 作者指南的符合程度;在第 3 部分,我们对 PLS 进行了健康素养评估。

结果

第 1 部分:我们发现 20/26(76.9%)纳入期刊的 PLS。第 2 部分:没有期刊完全符合 PLS 作者指南。最高水平为 86%,最低水平为 0%。第 3 部分:没有 PLS 的可读性适合普通读者。平均阅读水平为 15.8 年级(范围 10.2-21.2),平均复杂词汇百分比为 31%(范围 8.5%-49.8%)。

讨论

PLS 是消费者获取研究结果的重要途径。我们发现健康期刊中 PLS 作者指南与发表的 PLS 之间存在不符,这可能会阻碍消费者的获取和使用。本研究强调了需要更好的方法来支持作者遵守 PLS 指令,并加强期刊的监测。

相似文献

1
Are plain language summaries published in health journals written according to instructions and health literacy principles? A systematic environmental scan.卫生期刊中发表的通俗易懂的摘要是否按照说明和健康素养原则撰写?系统环境扫描。
BMJ Open. 2024 Nov 27;14(11):e086464. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086464.
2
What Author Instructions Do Health Journals Provide for Writing Plain Language Summaries? A Scoping Review.健康期刊对撰写通俗易懂的摘要提供了哪些作者指南?一项范围综述。
Patient. 2023 Jan;16(1):31-42. doi: 10.1007/s40271-022-00606-7. Epub 2022 Oct 27.
3
Jargon and Readability in Plain Language Summaries of Health Research: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.健康研究简明语言摘要中的术语与可读性:横断面观察性研究
J Med Internet Res. 2025 Jan 13;27:e50862. doi: 10.2196/50862.
4
Optimizing Readability and Format of Plain Language Summaries for Medical Research Articles: Cross-sectional Survey Study.优化医学研究文章的平实语言摘要的可读性和格式:横断面调查研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jan 11;24(1):e22122. doi: 10.2196/22122.
5
Plain Language Summaries of Clinical Trial Results: A Preliminary Study to Assess Availability of Easy-to-Understand Summaries and Approaches to Improving Public Engagement.临床试验结果的简明报告:评估易于理解的摘要的可用性和提高公众参与度的方法的初步研究。
Pharmaceut Med. 2020 Dec;34(6):401-406. doi: 10.1007/s40290-020-00359-4. Epub 2020 Oct 28.
6
Perspectives of people with chronic illness about plain language summaries: a qualitative analysis.慢性病患者对简明语言摘要的看法:一项定性分析。
Health Promot Int. 2025 Mar 5;40(2). doi: 10.1093/heapro/daaf044.
7
Using ChatGPT to Improve the Presentation of Plain Language Summaries of Cochrane Systematic Reviews About Oncology Interventions: Cross-Sectional Study.利用ChatGPT改善关于肿瘤学干预措施的Cochrane系统评价的简明语言总结的呈现方式:横断面研究
JMIR Cancer. 2025 Mar 19;11:e63347. doi: 10.2196/63347.
8
Conclusiveness, linguistic characteristics and readability of Cochrane plain language summaries of intervention reviews: a cross-sectional study.干预性综述 Cochrane 通俗易懂摘要的结论一致性、语言特点和易读性:一项横断面研究。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022 Sep 10;22(1):240. doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01721-7.
9
Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research.简明语言摘要:理论、指南和实证研究的系统综述。
PLoS One. 2022 Jun 6;17(6):e0268789. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268789. eCollection 2022.
10
Linguistic analysis of plain language summaries and corresponding scientific summaries of Cochrane systematic reviews about oncology interventions.关于肿瘤学干预措施的Cochrane系统评价的简明语言摘要及相应科学摘要的语言分析。
Cancer Med. 2023 May;12(9):10950-10960. doi: 10.1002/cam4.5825. Epub 2023 Mar 23.

引用本文的文献

1
Perspectives of people with chronic illness about plain language summaries: a qualitative analysis.慢性病患者对简明语言摘要的看法:一项定性分析。
Health Promot Int. 2025 Mar 5;40(2). doi: 10.1093/heapro/daaf044.

本文引用的文献

1
Are lay abstracts published in readable enough for the general public? A short report.发表的非专业摘要对普通大众来说可读性够强吗?一篇简短报告。
Autism. 2023 Nov;27(8):2555-2559. doi: 10.1177/13623613231163083. Epub 2023 Mar 25.
2
Easily readable? Examining the readability of lay summaries published in Autism Research.易于阅读?审视发表于《自闭症研究》的外行摘要的可读性。
Autism Res. 2023 May;16(5):935-940. doi: 10.1002/aur.2917. Epub 2023 Mar 10.
3
Multiple Automated Health Literacy Assessments of Written Health Information: Development of the SHeLL (Sydney Health Literacy Lab) Health Literacy Editor v1.
书面健康信息的多种自动化健康素养评估:悉尼健康素养实验室(SHeLL)健康素养编辑器v1的开发
JMIR Form Res. 2023 Feb 14;7:e40645. doi: 10.2196/40645.
4
What Author Instructions Do Health Journals Provide for Writing Plain Language Summaries? A Scoping Review.健康期刊对撰写通俗易懂的摘要提供了哪些作者指南?一项范围综述。
Patient. 2023 Jan;16(1):31-42. doi: 10.1007/s40271-022-00606-7. Epub 2022 Oct 27.
5
Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research.简明语言摘要:理论、指南和实证研究的系统综述。
PLoS One. 2022 Jun 6;17(6):e0268789. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268789. eCollection 2022.
6
Optimizing Readability and Format of Plain Language Summaries for Medical Research Articles: Cross-sectional Survey Study.优化医学研究文章的平实语言摘要的可读性和格式:横断面调查研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jan 11;24(1):e22122. doi: 10.2196/22122.
7
Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017.对1987年至2017年期间分析作者指南的研究进行系统评价和荟萃分析。
Nat Commun. 2021 Oct 5;12(1):5840. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26027-y.
8
Comparison of the readability of lay summaries and scientific abstracts published in CF Research News and the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis: Recommendations for writing lay summaries.《囊性纤维化研究新闻》和《囊性纤维化杂志》上发表的通俗易懂的总结与科学摘要的可读性比较:撰写通俗易懂的总结的建议
J Cyst Fibros. 2022 Jan;21(1):e11-e14. doi: 10.1016/j.jcf.2021.09.009. Epub 2021 Sep 30.
9
Lessons Learned from Developing Plain Language Summaries of Research Studies.从研究报告简明摘要的开发中吸取的教训。
Health Lit Res Pract. 2021 Apr;5(2):e155-e161. doi: 10.3928/24748307-20210524-01. Epub 2021 Jun 22.
10
Are plain-language summaries included in published reports of evidence about physiotherapy interventions? Analysis of 4421 randomised trials, systematic reviews and guidelines on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro).发表的关于物理治疗干预证据的报告中是否包含通俗易懂的摘要?对 Physiotherapy Evidence Database(PEDro)上的 4421 项随机试验、系统评价和指南进行的分析。
Physiotherapy. 2019 Sep;105(3):354-361. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2018.11.003. Epub 2018 Nov 15.