What instructions are available to health researchers for writing lay summaries? A scoping review
Authors: Gainey Karen M , O’Keeffe Mary , Traeger Adrian C , Muscat Danielle M , Williams Christopher M , McCaffrey Kirsten J , Kamper Steven J 
Published: June 2021

STRUCTURED ABSTRACTObjectiveTo better understand the characteristics of, and requirements for, lay summaries by reviewing journals, global health organisations, professional medical associations and multi-disciplinary organisations, consumer advocacy groups and funding bodies.DesignUsing a scoping review methodology, we searched the websites of each identified data source to determine if they require, suggest, or refer to lay summaries. Two reviewers extracted lay summary writing instructions from eligible data sources from Australia, USA, UK, Canada and New Zealand. Data sources were linked to the top 10 non-communicable diseases.Main Outcome MeasuresUsing an inductive approach, we identified characteristics of lay summaries and lay summary writing instructions and extracted data on these characteristics. These characteristics are lay summary formats, audience, requirements, authorship and labels, and elements of lay summary writing instructions (e.g. word count/length). We also noted who was expected to write the lay summaries, whether they were mandatory or optional, and the terms used for to denote them.ResultsThe websites of 526 data sources were searched. Of these, 124 published or mentioned lay summaries and 108 provided writing instructions. For lay summaries, most were in journals, written by the author of the published paper, and only half were mandatory. Thirty-three distinct labels for a lay summary were identified, the most common being “graphical abstract”, “highlights” and “key points”. From the lay summary writing instructions, the most common elements for written lay summaries referred to: structure (86%), content (80%) and word count/length (74%). The least common elements were readability (3%), use of jargon, acronyms and abbreviations (24%), and wording (29%). The target audience was unclear in 68 of 108 (63.0%) of lay summary instructions.DiscussionAlthough we identified over 100 sources provided instructions for writing lay summaries, very few provided instructions related to readability, use of jargon, acronyms and abbreviations, and wording. Some instructions provided structured formats via subheadings or questions to guide content, but not all. Only half mandated the use of lay summaries.ConclusionFor lay summaries to be effective, writing instructions should consider the intended audience, ideally incorporating consumer input into their development. Presently, lay summaries are likely to be inaccessible to many consumers, written at a high reading level, with jargon, acronyms and abbreviations. Ideally, all research articles will have an accompanying lay summary. Mandatory lay summaries, however, are of limited value without clear and thorough instructions to guide authors.Public and patient involvement statementPatients or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of our research study.Protocol and registrationWe conducted a scoping review using methods outlined in the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews and information in the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual for scoping reviews. A protocol for this study was completed prior to data analysis and is on Open Science Framework.