Randomised Study Within a Review (SWAR) to Compare Communication of the Findings of Systematic Reviews to the Public by Plain Language Summary or Video Abstract

NCT07333924 | Completed Phase 3

• 1 other identifier: SWAR02-2026
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: 67
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

A systematic review is a type of research that collects and analyses all the existing studies on a specific topic in a structured and organised way. Instead of just looking at one study, it combines results from many studies to get a clearer, more reliable answer to a question. However, the complex language used in systematic reviews often makes them inaccessible to the public, highlighting the need for effective communication strategies, particularly for reviews relating to health and social care or public health. However, there is limited research exploring alternative ways to present research articles, with only a few delivery methods studied so far. It remains unclear how different styles of communicating might effectively convey scientific findings accurately or enhance public engagement and understanding of complex topics. Studies Within A Review (SWARs) are studies which are embedded into a systematic review and aim to form an evidence base to improve how we plan, do, and share systematic reviews. SWARs offer a promising way of improving the methodology of systematic reviews and dissemination of their findings. This randomised trial aims to address the current research gap by identifying the effectiveness of two different ways to communicate systematic review findings to the public and determining which methods are more suitable for different audiences: participants will be asked to read a summary or watch an animated video of a summary of both reviews and then complete a questionnaire about the reviews' findings and conclusions. The study will assess outcomes such as comprehension, perceived understanding, engagement, and interest of participants in reading the full reviews. By evaluating the impact of different communication strategies, this study aims to strengthen the evidence base for methods to communicate complex scientific findings to the public. The results are expected to provide valuable insights for optimising the communication of the key findings of systematic reviews, ensuring that summaries are clear, engaging and accessible.

Conditions

Behavioral Changes

Keywords

Plain language summary; Animated video; Study Within a Review (SWAR); Systematic reviews; Evidence synthesis; Public understanding

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (2)

• Immediate comprehension of the information presented in the review summary.

  A multiple-choice question is included to assess participants' understanding of the primary focus of the research by asking them to choose from a list of topics about the focus of the review, only one of which is correct. There are also five questions presented as statements relating to specific content from the review summary and participants are required to indicate whether each statement is true or false. The unit of measure will be the proportion of participants who select the correct answer to each question. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.

  Immediately after interaction with the summary.

• Retention of the participant's comprehension of the information presented in the review summary

  Participants will answer the same six questions that were used to assess their comprehension immediately after their interaction with the summary. This will include a multiple-choice question asking them to choose from a list of topics about the focus of the review, only one of which is correct. There are also five questions presented as statements relating to specific content from the review summary and participants are required to indicate whether each statement is true or false. The unit of measure will be the proportion of participants who select the correct answer to each question. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.

  1 to 2 weeks after interaction with the summary.

Secondary Outcomes (3)

• Participant's perceived understanding (i.e. how well they believe they understood the review summary)

  Immediately after interaction with the summary.

• Participant's enjoyment of their interaction with the summary

  Immediately after interaction with the summary.

• Participant's interest in reading the full text of the systematic review after their interaction with its summary

  Immediately after interaction with the summary.

Study Arms (2)

Reading group

ACTIVE COMPARATOR

Written summary of a systematic review

Other: Plain language summary

Video group

EXPERIMENTAL

Video summary of a systematic review

Other: Animated video

Interventions

Animated video OTHER

An animated video summary of the systematic review.

Video group

Plain language summary OTHER

A written summary of the systematic review.

Reading group

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 18 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Adults (aged 18 years+)
• Any gender
• Able to read and understand English
• Willing to read and listen to review summaries, and answer questions
• Provide informed consent to participate

You may not qualify if:

• People with learning difficulty
• People who do not read or understand English
• People with hearing or visual impairment
• People under 18 years of age

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Queen's University, Belfast: lead
• Aberdeen Belfast Evidence Collaboration: collaborator

Study Sites (1)

Queen's University Belfast

Belfast, United Kingdom

Location

Related Publications (2)

• Maguire LK, Clarke M. How much do you need: a randomised experiment of whether readers can understand the key messages from summaries of Cochrane Reviews without reading the full review. J R Soc Med. 2014 Nov;107(11):444-9. doi: 10.1177/0141076814546710. Epub 2014 Oct 23.

  PMID: 25341445 BACKGROUND

• Devane D, Burke NN, Treweek S, Clarke M, Thomas J, Booth A, Tricco AC, Saif-Ur-Rahman KM. Study within a review (SWAR). J Evid Based Med. 2022 Dec;15(4):328-332. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12505. Epub 2022 Dec 13. No abstract available.

  PMID: 36513956 BACKGROUND

Related Links

• SWAR02 original outline

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: phase 3
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: NONE
• Purpose: HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Chair, Research Methodology

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: December 18, 2025
• First Posted: January 12, 2026
• Study Start: January 15, 2026
• Primary Completion: March 18, 2026
• Study Completion: March 18, 2026
• Last Updated: March 24, 2026

Record last verified: 2026-03

Locations

GB (1)