This feature article is written by some of the Editorial Board at Perspectives in Public Health. It introduces the use of Plain Language Summaries, how to write one and the benefits of including them in your article

Ells, Louisa

Frazer, Kate

Homer, Catherine

Radley, Duncan

Saunders, Joanna

Stickley, Theo

Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive

The Benefits of Plain Language Summaries in Public Health PublishingFRAZER, Kate, RADLEY, Duncan, HOMER, Catherine <http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2571-6008>, ELLS, Louisa, SAUNDERS, Joanna and STICKLEY, TheoAvailable from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at:https://shura.shu.ac.uk/35527/This document is the Accepted Version [AM]Citation:FRAZER, Kate, RADLEY, Duncan, HOMER, Catherine, ELLS, Louisa, SAUNDERS, Joanna and STICKLEY, Theo (2025). The Benefits of Plain Language Summaries in Public Health Publishing. Perspectives in Public Health. [Article] Copyright and re-use policySee http://shura.shu.ac.uk/information.htmlSheffield Hallam University Research Archivehttp://shura.shu.ac.ukFeature Article 2ND DRAFT  The Benefits of Plain Language Summaries in Public Health Publishing  Authors: Kate Frazer, Duncan Radley, Catherine Homer, Louisa Ells, Joanna Saunders, Theodore Stickley Introduction In this article, we introduce the concept of Plain Language Summaries (PLS), offer a brief discussion on their use and highlight some key issues in their development. The authors of this feature article are all Editorial Board members of this journal (Perspectives in Public Health), and whole-heartedly support the introduction of PLS in this and other public health journals. Briefly, in academic publishing, a PLS precedes the abstract in a published journal article reporting either original research or some form of review aiming to succinctly summarise the article so that anyone can understand the aims, methods and results of the research. The precise origins of PLS are difficult to pin down, however over the last ten years, the use of them has greatly increased. This has been assisted by the European Union Clinical Trial Regulations requiring the submission of lay summaries for all new clinical trials 1. More recently, the Cochrane Community produced a template for PLS in Cochrane Reviews2. Take-up of the introduction of PLS in public health journals is slow but is increasing. The Health Research Authority3 suggest that PLS should be accurate, clear and concise and should not assume any prior knowledge of the subject. Authors should use short sentences (up to 20 words) and construct short paragraphs (up to three sentences). They advise involving patients or their representatives, or members of the public in the development and review of summaries.  There are many published articles that discuss the merits and difficulties of the widespread use of PLS.  For example, Dormer et al4 outline the development of a ‘How-To’ Guide for multi-stakeholder co-creation of PLS for peer-reviewed publications, based on the principle that co-creation of PLS by the researchers and the intended audience is key to ensuring a successful outcome. Anchored in a set of 15 ethical principles (e.g. the need for balanced presentation, and the importance of using inclusive and respectful language), a Feature Article 2ND DRAFT  comprehensive and useful seven-step process for PLS development is described.  Structure, guidelines and consistency in reporting Several research groups have explored the appropriate structure and content for effective PLS. Lobban et al5 sought views of varied stakeholders on the development and use of PLS to explain sponsored medical research. Twenty-nine stakeholders contributed to surveys and group discussions using ten questions which included what PLS should contain, who they should target and how to assess quality. The study established broad agreement on what should be included in future guidance to support researchers to writing PLS.  Maurer et al’s  6  US study aimed to improve plain English summaries by co-developing a standard template with stakeholders including citizens and health professionals. Their template used a simple, short, question-and-answer format, which was tested over three years producing 272 summaries. Audience testing of the summaries demonstrated the importance of: 1) a consistent format – users liked the simple, short standard Q&A format; 2) careful prioritisation of content – ensuring it is relevant to consumers and 3) communicating impartiality and study limitations. The study concluded that for PLS to be effective there needs to be some consistency across publications.  This evidence highlights inconsistences in terminology and in describing lay summaries and PLS.7   The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to automate the production of PLS has been the focus of recent research. While some studies suggest it holds substantial promise,8,9 others indicate that major challenges remain10,11. Ovelman et al.,12 reported that using an AI tool to assist in developing PLS for Cochrane trials also created several difficulties.   Following the American Psychological Association's Inclusive Language guide13, they describe training and assessing an AI tool using ten evidence reviews from 2021 to 2023 to prompt several variables, including plain language, reading level, active voice and inclusive language.  They adjusted the versions created to increase the information within the summaries produced, e.g., to ensure the number of studies and/or patients were reported in summaries. They compared AI generated PLS to the ones published to assess accuracy. While the word limit was adhered to in all AI generated summaries, the need for human editing due to inconsistencies and errors in reporting e.g.  the style across 50% of the AI generated summaries was inconsistent, impacting sentence construction. The authors therefore suggest using AI to generate PLS has the potential to assist Feature Article 2ND DRAFT  researchers; but the summaries require editing and tailoring for audiences to produce a final version. This feasibility study demonstrates that AI cannot replace the input and expertise of members of a target audience in developing a PLS. Digital technology may help build an initial summary document; however, the specific nuances of and for a target audience are absent, and consultation with people [with lived experience] is critical, using engaged methods. Plain Language Summaries are important because they widen engagement with research articles by highlighting the key messages and their relevance to the potential reader.  Many readers of Perspectives in Public Health do not work in academic settings and are challenged by colleagues and indeed politicians to provide clear and concise evidence for recommendations and decision-making.  The inclusion of PLS supports the communication of public health messages for our communities and stakeholders, including through the use of social media.   Conclusion In 2023, Perspectives in Public Health adopted guidelines for author creation PLS for all peer-review articles. As far as we are concerned, the language for PLS, should be accessible, jargon-free, non-technical and AI should not be used when constructing the text.    Writing a PLS requires a different set of skills from producing a scholarly article. Authors should use short concise sentences; use simplified terms and avoid jargon and acronyms and should not merely replace jargon with simplified terms. The PLS should have a different tone to the abstract and appeal to lay-readers and preferably be co-written with patients and/or public representatives.  We ask for the following questions to be answered using no more than 300 words: • Why is this work important? • What question did you want to answer? • How was the question answered?  • Who took part? • What did you find? • What will the findings mean to the public/patients?  Feature Article 2ND DRAFT    References 1] European Union EU Clinical Trial Regulations (2017) https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-02/2017_01_26_summaries_of_ct_results_for_laypersons_0.pdf Accessed 05.01.25 2] Cochrane Community (2024) https://community.cochrane.org/news/updated-template-and-guidance-writing-plain-language-summaries-cochrane-reviews-now-available Accessed 05.01.25  3] The Health Research Authority https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/best-practice/writing-plain-language-lay-summary-your-research-findings/ Accessed 05.01.25 4]  Dormer, L., Schindler, T., Williams, L. A., Lobban, D., Khawaja, S., Hunn, A., ... & Hamoir, A. M. (2022). A practical ‘How-To’Guide to plain language summaries (PLS) of peer-reviewed scientific publications: results of a multi-stakeholder initiative utilizing co-creation methodology. Research Involvement and Engagement, 8(1), 23. 5] Lobban, D., Gardner, J., & Matheis, R. (2022). Plain language summaries of publications of company-sponsored medical research: what key questions do we need to address?. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 38(2), 189-200. 6] Maurer, M., Siegel, J. E., Firminger, K. B., Lowers, J., Dutta, T., & Chang, J. S. (2021). Lessons learned from developing plain language summaries of research studies. HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice, 5(2), e155-e161. 7] Griffiths, S., Appiah, A., Rosenberg, A., Gonzalez, J. and Baróniková, S., (2022). Landscaping the terminology of accessible language document types. Medical Writing, 31, pp.24-31. 8] Eppler, M. B., Ganjavi, C., Knudsen, J. E., Davis, R. J., Ayo-Ajibola, O., Feature Article 2ND DRAFT  Desai, A., ... & Cacciamani, G. E. (2023). Bridging the gap between urological research and patient understanding: the role of large language models in automated generation of layperson’s summaries. Urology practice, 10(5), 436-443.  9] Kuckelman, I. J., Wetley, K., Yi, P. H., & Ross, A. B. (2024). Translating musculoskeletal radiology reports into patient-friendly summaries using ChatGPT-4. Skeletal radiology, 1-4.  10] Hwang, T., Aggarwal, N., Khan, P. Z., Roberts, T., Mahmood, A., Griffiths, M. M., ... & Khan, S. (2024). Can ChatGPT assist authors with abstract writing in medical journals? Evaluating the quality of scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT and original abstracts. Plos one, 19(2), e0297701.  11] Haidar, O., Jaques, A., McCaughran, P. W., & Metcalfe, M. J. (2023). AI-Generated Information for Vascular Patients: Assessing the Standard of Procedure-Specific Information Provided by the ChatGPT AI-Language Model. Cureus, 15(11).  12]  Ovelman, C., Kugley, S., Gartlehner, G., & Viswanathan, M. (2024). The use of a large language model to create plain language summaries of evidence reviews in healthcare: A feasibility study. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods, 2(2), e12041.  13] American Psychological Association (2024) https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines Accessed 05.01.25   

The Benefits of Plain Language Summaries in Public Health Publishing

Frazer, K

Radley, D

Homer, C

Ells, L

Saunders, J

Stickley, T

Leeds Beckett Repository

Citation:Frazer, K and Radley, D and Homer, C and Ells, L and Saunders, J and Stickley, T (2025) Thebenefits of plain language summaries in public health publishing. Perspectives in Public Health, 145(3). pp. 127-129. ISSN 1757-9139 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139251335966Link to Leeds Beckett Repository record:https://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/12274/Document Version:Article (Accepted Version)Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0The aim of the Leeds Beckett Repository is to provide open access to our research, as required byfunder policies and permitted by publishers and copyright law.The Leeds Beckett repository holds a wide range of publications, each of which has beenchecked for copyright and the relevant embargo period has been applied by the Research Servicesteam.We operate on a standard take-down policy. If you are the author or publisher of an outputand you would like it removed from the repository, please contact us and we will investigate on acase-by-case basis.Each thesis in the repository has been cleared where necessary by the author for third partycopyright. If you would like a thesis to be removed from the repository or believe there is an issuewith copyright, please contact us on openaccess@leedsbeckett.ac.uk and we will investigate on acase-by-case basis.Feature Article 2ND DRAFT  The Benefits of Plain Language Summaries in Public Health Publishing  Authors: Kate Frazer, Duncan Radley, Catherine Homer, Louisa Ells, Joanna Saunders, Theodore Stickley Introduction In this article, we introduce the concept of Plain Language Summaries (PLS), offer a brief discussion on their use and highlight some key issues in their development. The authors of this feature article are all Editorial Board members of this journal (Perspectives in Public Health), and whole-heartedly support the introduction of PLS in this and other public health journals. Briefly, in academic publishing, a PLS precedes the abstract in a published journal article reporting either original research or some form of review aiming to succinctly summarise the article so that anyone can understand the aims, methods and results of the research. The precise origins of PLS are difficult to pin down, however over the last ten years, the use of them has greatly increased. This has been assisted by the European Union Clinical Trial Regulations requiring the submission of lay summaries for all new clinical trials 1. More recently, the Cochrane Community produced a template for PLS in Cochrane Reviews2. Take-up of the introduction of PLS in public health journals is slow but is increasing. The Health Research Authority3 suggest that PLS should be accurate, clear and concise and should not assume any prior knowledge of the subject. Authors should use short sentences (up to 20 words) and construct short paragraphs (up to three sentences). They advise involving patients or their representatives, or members of the public in the development and review of summaries.  There are many published articles that discuss the merits and difficulties of the widespread use of PLS.  For example, Dormer et al4 outline the development of a ‘How-To’ Guide for multi-stakeholder co-creation of PLS for peer-reviewed publications, based on the principle that co-creation of PLS by the researchers and the intended audience is key to ensuring a successful outcome. Anchored in a set of 15 ethical principles (e.g. the need for balanced presentation, and the importance of using inclusive and respectful language), a Feature Article 2ND DRAFT  comprehensive and useful seven-step process for PLS development is described.  Structure, guidelines and consistency in reporting Several research groups have explored the appropriate structure and content for effective PLS. Lobban et al5 sought views of varied stakeholders on the development and use of PLS to explain sponsored medical research. Twenty-nine stakeholders contributed to surveys and group discussions using ten questions which included what PLS should contain, who they should target and how to assess quality. The study established broad agreement on what should be included in future guidance to support researchers to writing PLS.  Maurer et al’s  6  US study aimed to improve plain English summaries by co-developing a standard template with stakeholders including citizens and health professionals. Their template used a simple, short, question-and-answer format, which was tested over three years producing 272 summaries. Audience testing of the summaries demonstrated the importance of: 1) a consistent format – users liked the simple, short standard Q&A format; 2) careful prioritisation of content – ensuring it is relevant to consumers and 3) communicating impartiality and study limitations. The study concluded that for PLS to be effective there needs to be some consistency across publications.  This evidence highlights inconsistences in terminology and in describing lay summaries and PLS.7   The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools to automate the production of PLS has been the focus of recent research. While some studies suggest it holds substantial promise,8,9 others indicate that major challenges remain10,11. Ovelman et al.,12 reported that using an AI tool to assist in developing PLS for Cochrane trials also created several difficulties.   Following the American Psychological Association's Inclusive Language guide13, they describe training and assessing an AI tool using ten evidence reviews from 2021 to 2023 to prompt several variables, including plain language, reading level, active voice and inclusive language.  They adjusted the versions created to increase the information within the summaries produced, e.g., to ensure the number of studies and/or patients were reported in summaries. They compared AI generated PLS to the ones published to assess accuracy. While the word limit was adhered to in all AI generated summaries, the need for human editing due to inconsistencies and errors in reporting e.g.  the style across 50% of the AI generated summaries was inconsistent, impacting sentence construction. The authors therefore suggest using AI to generate PLS has the potential to assist Feature Article 2ND DRAFT  researchers; but the summaries require editing and tailoring for audiences to produce a final version. This feasibility study demonstrates that AI cannot replace the input and expertise of members of a target audience in developing a PLS. Digital technology may help build an initial summary document; however, the specific nuances of and for a target audience are absent, and consultation with people [with lived experience] is critical, using engaged methods. Plain Language Summaries are important because they widen engagement with research articles by highlighting the key messages and their relevance to the potential reader.  Many readers of Perspectives in Public Health do not work in academic settings and are challenged by colleagues and indeed politicians to provide clear and concise evidence for recommendations and decision-making.  The inclusion of PLS supports the communication of public health messages for our communities and stakeholders, including through the use of social media.   Conclusion In 2023, Perspectives in Public Health adopted guidelines for author creation PLS for all peer-review articles. As far as we are concerned, the language for PLS, should be accessible, jargon-free, non-technical and AI should not be used when constructing the text.    Writing a PLS requires a different set of skills from producing a scholarly article. Authors should use short concise sentences; use simplified terms and avoid jargon and acronyms and should not merely replace jargon with simplified terms. The PLS should have a different tone to the abstract and appeal to lay-readers and preferably be co-written with patients and/or public representatives.  We ask for the following questions to be answered using no more than 300 words: • Why is this work important? • What question did you want to answer? • How was the question answered?  • Who took part? • What did you find? • What will the findings mean to the public/patients?  Feature Article 2ND DRAFT    References 1] European Union EU Clinical Trial Regulations (2017) https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-02/2017_01_26_summaries_of_ct_results_for_laypersons_0.pdf Accessed 05.01.25 2] Cochrane Community (2024) https://community.cochrane.org/news/updated-template-and-guidance-writing-plain-language-summaries-cochrane-reviews-now-available Accessed 05.01.25  3] The Health Research Authority https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/best-practice/writing-plain-language-lay-summary-your-research-findings/ Accessed 05.01.25 4]  Dormer, L., Schindler, T., Williams, L. A., Lobban, D., Khawaja, S., Hunn, A., ... & Hamoir, A. M. (2022). A practical ‘How-To’Guide to plain language summaries (PLS) of peer-reviewed scientific publications: results of a multi-stakeholder initiative utilizing co-creation methodology. Research Involvement and Engagement, 8(1), 23. 5] Lobban, D., Gardner, J., & Matheis, R. (2022). Plain language summaries of publications of company-sponsored medical research: what key questions do we need to address?. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 38(2), 189-200. 6] Maurer, M., Siegel, J. E., Firminger, K. B., Lowers, J., Dutta, T., & Chang, J. S. (2021). Lessons learned from developing plain language summaries of research studies. HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice, 5(2), e155-e161. 7] Griffiths, S., Appiah, A., Rosenberg, A., Gonzalez, J. and Baróniková, S., (2022). Landscaping the terminology of accessible language document types. Medical Writing, 31, pp.24-31. 8] Eppler, M. B., Ganjavi, C., Knudsen, J. E., Davis, R. J., Ayo-Ajibola, O., Feature Article 2ND DRAFT  Desai, A., ... & Cacciamani, G. E. (2023). Bridging the gap between urological research and patient understanding: the role of large language models in automated generation of layperson’s summaries. Urology practice, 10(5), 436-443.  9] Kuckelman, I. J., Wetley, K., Yi, P. H., & Ross, A. B. (2024). Translating musculoskeletal radiology reports into patient-friendly summaries using ChatGPT-4. Skeletal radiology, 1-4.  10] Hwang, T., Aggarwal, N., Khan, P. Z., Roberts, T., Mahmood, A., Griffiths, M. M., ... & Khan, S. (2024). Can ChatGPT assist authors with abstract writing in medical journals? Evaluating the quality of scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT and original abstracts. Plos one, 19(2), e0297701.  11] Haidar, O., Jaques, A., McCaughran, P. W., & Metcalfe, M. J. (2023). AI-Generated Information for Vascular Patients: Assessing the Standard of Procedure-Specific Information Provided by the ChatGPT AI-Language Model. Cureus, 15(11).  12]  Ovelman, C., Kugley, S., Gartlehner, G., & Viswanathan, M. (2024). The use of a large language model to create plain language summaries of evidence reviews in healthcare: A feasibility study. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods, 2(2), e12041.  13] American Psychological Association (2024) https://www.apa.org/about/apa/equity-diversity-inclusion/language-guidelines Accessed 05.01.25   

The benefits of plain language summaries in public health publishing

https://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/12274/1/TheBenefitsOfPlainLanguageSummariesInPublicHealthPublishingAM-RADLEY.pdf

The Benefits of Plain Language Summaries in Public Health Publishing

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive

Leeds Beckett Repository