lay summary research

You are here

How to write a lay summary.

By Monica Duke (DCC) in collaboration with the Patients Participate! project

Published: December 2012

Online version updated: April and May 2013 (to fix broken links)

Browse the guide below or download the PDF

** This publication is available in print and can be ordered from our online store **

Please cite as: Duke, M. (2012). ‘How to Write a Lay Summary’. DCC How-to Guides . Edinburgh: Digital Curation Centre. Available online: /resources/how-guides

Why lay summaries are useful

How lay summaries are used, guidelines for writing lay summaries, roles and responsibilities, training and support examples, current issues and challenges.

• Further information and bibliography

Acknowledgements

Public engagement is a priority for funders of higher education. Funders expect universities to demonstrate the impact of research on the public, how they are meeting the needs of wider society, and the relevance and responsiveness of their research. [1] As explained by the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement, evidence is growing that there are benefits to universities, to students and staff, and to society. Methods of public engagement include consulting, collaborating and informing, using different media such as presentations, podcasts and writing for non-specialist audiences. The benefits of public engagement are particularly recognised for medical and health research:

'If we want medical and health research to be of real benefit to patients and their families then we must strive to involve them more in setting the questions to which we are seeking answers, the way in which research is conducted and, finally, how it is disseminated and put into practice. Time and again the evidence shows that service user involvement results in outcomes that are more relevant and useful.'

Simon Denegri (Chair of INVOLVE)  [2]

INVOLVE, a national advisory group funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research, reports that involving service users helps at all stages of a research project, from developing the research question through to disseminating the results. The benefits of the direct involvement of service users in research have been identified as follows  [3] :

• Increasing the relevance of the research
• Increasing recruitment to clinical research
• Improving the design of the research to address ethical concerns, improve the research tools and make it easier for the people taking part
• Improving the quality of the data and its interpretation
• Making it more likely that the findings of the research will be used to make a difference to service users’ lives.

In medicine and health, there is some evidence that when researchers get closer to patients, significant conversations develop about the priorities for patients, which in turn may lead to new areas of research, for example patient-focused research related to living with the condition.  [4]

Finally, involving the public in research could increase the likelihood of the research findings being used by others, as the public can have a stronger commitment to bringing about change.

'The service user who has been involved in research is often its most powerful advocate, promoting understanding among other service users and acting as ambassadors for the charity whether it be to the politician or the major donor.'

Simon Denegri (Chair of INVOLVE)  [5]

Attracting the support and confidence of the public is also important to the organisations that fund research.

Lay Summaries are one form of writing intended to help communicate research to a non-specialist audience. They describe research in non-specialist language and are meant for people who are not the immediate peers of the researcher. They can be required as part of grant conditions, either during the funding application process, or at the stage when research results are disseminated. Lay summaries are often written by researchers themselves, although some charities employ specialist writers for the purpose (see the CancerHelp UK case study on p.7 for an example). Lay summaries are useful to the lay public but can also make research accessible to professionals in nearby fields. The next sections of this guide provide a definition of lay summaries, describe some ways in which lay summaries are used, present an overview of guidelines for writing lay summaries, and consider some challenges in lay summary writing.

After reviewing the literature, Smith and Ashmore  [6]   found that the most succinct definition for a lay summary was provided by INVOLVE’s People in Research programme. This defines a lay summary in the following way  [7] :

 'A lay summary is a brief summary of a research project or a research proposal that has been written for members of the public, rather than researchers or professionals. It should be written in plain English, avoid the use of jargon and explain any technical terms that have to be included.'

Lay summaries serve the general purpose of explaining research to the non-expert. There are different ways in which lay summaries can be used, both by members of the general public and by other researchers who are not specialists in the field of research.

Research grant applications often contain a lay summary or abstract which helps to explain 'why the research is being suggested, what researchers aim to achieve, and how this may impact on the rest of the research community'. [8]  The AMRC Natural Ground report goes on to describe other ways in which lay summaries are used by some charities.

Patients or carers are being involved in research funding decisions. [9]  They have a direct interest in the outcome of the research and experience of the disease, and they are also able to advise on the feasibility of the research. To participate fully in decision-making, patients and carers involved in funding committees need the lay summary to help them understand the research.

There are different models for how lay members input into funding decisions – they can be members of the funding panel, they can be part of a separate but parallel lay review process, or they can comment on the value of research projects and their feasibility. Some charities have patients sitting alongside the scientific members of the committee. Others have lay members who review applications in parallel to the scientific review. At the Alzheimer’s Society applications have to be passed by lay members drawn from a consumer network before moving on to scientific peer review. The lay members give a score based on the importance of each application and how well it matches the research priorities of the society. They can also comment on each application.  [10]

The Arthritis Research Campaign has a USER committee that looks at the practicality of doing research and questions the assumptions of researchers. They reported that, in one instance, 'our patient reviewer was the only person to spot that a researcher had assumed that people would only have one artificial joint – many people with arthritis have more than one replacement joint, and so the suggested blood test would provide unclear results.'  [11]

As the AMRC Natural Ground report notes, [12]   a common theme of involving patients in research activities is that patients have “invaluable experience of living with the relevant condition and so are able to assess the feasibility of planned projects (even those that had been successfully peer reviewed) and provide a ‘reality check’.” Even research that has been approved by research ethics committees can raise practical issues that make the project unacceptable to patients asked to participate. Lay summaries provide an accessible way for patients to understand what research is proposed so that they can input into the research process.

The Alzheimer’s Society found that presentations at interview stage that had been simplified for the benefit of lay members resulted in presentations that were easier for the scientists on the panel to understand. Panel members are not always specialists in the particular field that the applicant is working in. This observation was also supported in the Patients Participate! discussions with academics, where one of our participants who sits on award panels reported that lay summaries were useful to her in her role as a reviewer. Smith and Ashmore suggest that the lay summary is a key part of the grant application, it being the only part of many applications that a busy reviewer may ever read.  [13]

Lay summaries are used to describe clinical trials as part of recruiting participants. These descriptions help prospective participants to decide whether they want to be involved in clinical trials. Charities may also need to assess whether to tell service users about opportunities to take part in research. Asthma UK has developed policies and procedures, forms and guidance to help describe what would be expected from participants.

Some charities use lay involvement to develop their research strategies and to ensure that they fund research that is responsive to the needs of their members. Lay members help them to define research priority areas. The charities also need to communicate research progress effectively. The Muscular Dystrophy Campaign provides an example of a charity with an aim of making complex research more accessible and understandable. It has involved a focus group 'Talk Research' in the work of its research communications staff, providing easy-to-understand versions of complex research advancements, through a weekly news service on the website and a yearly research magazine. The involvement of 'Talk Research' was reported as being a 'great success' and 'has led to a new way of communicating research and increasing website visits.'  [14]  Lay summaries are one of the tools that help to achieve these aims.

Some charities and other organisations provide guidelines for researchers with advice on how to write a lay summary, or more general advice on presenting information in an accessible way. In August 2011, UKOLN reviewed a selection of guidelines, collected by the project partners the AMRC and the British Library during discussions held with stakeholders in the Patients Participate! project (see box below), alongside other advice for writing lay summaries.

The guidance in those documents has been synthesised and is presented below. These guidelines can be turned into questions to ask about a lay summary, to check if the summary meets the criteria e.g. Is the summary appropriate for the readership? Other sources of help available include example lists for some of the guidelines, such as lists of plain English words, guidelines provided by charities, and information and resources made available by organisations with a remit to promote public engagement. These sources are listed in the further information section at the end of this guide. Some of the guides produced by charities are available online, but others were intended for internal use by the charity. Co-ordination would be required so that these guides are made more widely available and shared for more general use.

Characteristics of a summary document (lay summary)

Appropriateness for readership

The author should be aware of (and indicate) the intended audience for the text. For example, potential participants in studies OR the general public.

Grammar, punctuation and spelling

Grammar and punctuation should be accurate, and spelling should follow appropriate conventions. For example, UK spelling should be used if the text is to be published to a UK audience.

Level of difficulty of text (words and structure)

The text should be written in an easily readable style. The author should use short, clear sentences broken up into paragraphs for readability, and avoid complex grammatical structures where possible. The author should use everyday English words in place of complex words.

The text should be ordered logically and flow naturally. For example, ideas should be introduced as they are required, and new ideas usually should not be introduced late in the text.

Avoid complex or meaningless terms and phrases

Many terms used in academic English are either overcomplicated or contain no useful information. Examples include terms such as ‘virtually’ or ‘literally’ or archaic language (e.g. amidst, whilst), as well as verb choices such as ‘purchase’ used in place of the simpler ‘buy’.

Expressing ideas in the active voice

Text should be written in the active voice ('I... you..') and second person ('you') should be used in place of third person ('he/she'). For example, 'You will have chemotherapy' rather than 'Chemotherapy will be given to you'.

Positive phrasing

Sentences should be phrased positively, rather than negatively. For example, 'You will have repeat appointments at least once a fortnight', rather than 'The usual practice is not to schedule repeat appointments more frequently than once a fortnight'.

Adhering to convention

The text should have the correct word count and the author should structure it according to relevant guidelines (such as funders’ guidelines).

Straightforward to read

The writer should limit the memory load on readers – don’t ask them to remember too much jargon/abstract information.

Clear theme

A good and relevant title should be provided, and the first sentence should offer a concise introduction to the text.

The text should provide answers to the essential questions: Who, What, Where, When, Why, How? For example, the reader should easily be able to find answers to questions such as ‘By whom was the research funded, and why?’

Relevance, application and benefits

Aims and objectives should be clearly signalled. For example, the ‘point’ – the impact – of the work should be clearly understood.

Everyday examples

Give concrete everyday examples wherever possible.

Timescales, if relevant, should be clearly defined.

If it is relevant to the activity you are summarising, make sure that any risks attached to the activity are clearly identified and described.

Person-centred language

The language used should be person-centred, rather than focusing on circumstance, illness or disability. For example: ‘people with a disability/illness’ is preferable to ‘the disabled/invalids’; a person ‘has cerebral palsy’ rather than ‘is a victim of cerebral palsy’.

Appropriate tone

The text should not be written to entertain

Institutions are increasingly being encouraged to fulfil public engagement responsibilities. The Research Councils UK Concordat for Engaging the Public with Research offers the principle [15]  that research organisations need to have a strategic commitment to public engagement. Institutions have a role in encouraging researchers to communicate with the public and to make their research accessible. They may be able to provide training to researchers and those in training, e.g. post-graduates, through courses and events. They can raise awareness of and offer resources on writing lay summaries.

Funders (including public funding bodies and charities) may require the production of a lay summary as part of their grant conditions. Funders should provide clear guidance on the aims of the lay summary and describe how it will be used. They must explain to researchers why this additional information is needed, and stress the importance of doing it well. [16]  They may need to design structures and templates to assist with the production of lay summaries. They may need to ask researchers for further information or provide training on writing better lay summaries.

If scientific and lay members are commenting on different aspects of an application during review, the funding body must ensure that this is clear to all panel members. The chair of the panel should be briefed on how to manage any confusion.  [17] 

Researchers have a duty to make their research accessible to a wide audience. They may need to provide lay summaries to fulfil grant conditions or as part of an application for funding. Researchers need to perceive the writing of lay summaries as part of their wider remit to communicate with the public. They must seek to acquire the skills needed, and incorporate the teaching of those skills to junior members of their teams. Some researchers actively utilise lay summaries as an effective method to engage the public.

Service providers have a responsibility for the dissemination of research findings, including dissemination to the general public. Research is accessed in different ways and through different portals. There is a role for publishers of research and the funders of research to consider how the research can be presented using different forms, formats and channels to communicate it most effectively to different audiences. Different levels of detail and routes for navigating the information should be investigated and tested. 

In the Natural Ground report, the AMRC provides the following key learning points for organisations that wish to promote and support the writing of lay summaries: [ 18]

Some universities offer services to researchers and students to help them acquire lay summary writing skills. This help can take the form of courses or training activities, written guidance, and review and discussion.

The University of Manchester runs a training programme for graduates through its eProg Development Programme. Half day interactive workshops are held with small group discussions in which examples of lay summaries are deconstructed including samples of the participants’ draft summaries, with feedback provided. The Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences also publishes two resources for Graduates and Researchers: a tip sheet and a summary of guidance from research funders.

The University of Illinois offers a web page describing lay summaries and their different uses. Their Research Development Services offer a review service for research summaries.

The University of Bath hosted a conference entitled Developing Writing in STEM disciplines in September 2011, as part of a South West HE project on developing writing skills, to identify good practice in developing writing skills, attitudes, identities and values.

The production and use of lay summaries is an evolving practice, and cultural and practical challenges remain, both in producing well-written lay summaries that are accessible to the intended audience and in providing services that reach the public and are useful.

Writing lay summaries is inherently difficult or not enjoyable.

Most researchers find writing a lay summary a difficult task [20]  which may require different skills to other writing tasks that they perform. In the Natural Ground report, the AMRC reported that 'researchers often continued to provide summaries that were impenetrable to patients and the public'; the information provided was insufficiently clear, despite requests to simplify it.  [21]  CancerHelp UK found that clinical researchers often did not have the necessary skills, and they now employ a team of people with the defined skills and training for writing for a lay audience.

Some researchers enjoy writing for the public and embrace the value of helping the public understand science, [22]  others consider writing their research in accessible language to be a time-consuming challenge. Moreover, writing lay summaries has to fit alongside other demands and workloads, often juggled with deadlines for grant submissions, when other parts of the grant are considered more important. The lay summary can become a chore, and feel like a difficult and pointless exercise, particularly if researchers do not feel that they are equipped with the required skills.

Researchers may need to be persuaded of the benefits.

For researchers to commit the time and effort to learn the skills and write good summaries, they need to believe that public engagement is one possible approach to improving the quality, relevance and impact of their work. Not everyone will buy in to this argument, and the anticipated benefits and processes may need to be spelled out. Until researchers see the benefits for themselves, writing lay summaries can be perceived as a burden. Positive examples from other fields may be a useful tool to demonstrate benefits.

Defining the audience.

One of the key pieces of advice given to lay summary writers is for the summary to be compelling and hunderstandable by the audience it is written for. However the audience is often either poorly defined or described in ways that may not be helpful to the writer. Smith and Ashmore [23]  illustrate with examples that guidance from funders can be contradictory or unclear.

Read-aloud and review by non-specialists as methods of checking lay summaries.

Two methods are commonly suggested to lay summary writers to check the appropriateness of lay summaries. These are to read the text aloud to yourself, and to ask someone else who is not the domain expert, and preferably from the intended audience, to read and comment on it. There are reports in the literature that reading aloud helps to detect errors, although there is a lack of information on the specific task of using this method for lay summary checking. Studies do suggest that finding errors in in texts written by others is easier than finding errors in one’s own text. However some questions remain about the specific skills needed and how they can be taught. Error detection through reading is quite complex and does depend on who is doing the reading. Further research into both these methods for checking lay summaries would be useful, for example to suggest some effective guidelines for proof-reading of lay summaries.

Providing support for lay summary writing (templates/forms)

The lay summary may need to be presented in a style and structure that is different to that normally used in applications for funding or when writing for journals and conferences. The Stroke Association reported that survivors and carers would require different information from that in the traditional application form. [24]  The lay summary must answer the questions that lay people have about the research. For example patients trying to decide whether to join a clinical trial may want information about the number of hospital visits required from participants. Templates and forms with directed questions can help to make sure that the questions of interest to the lay reader are answered. One example is provided by The Stroke Association, where the questions that guide the lay summary writing focus on the involvement of stroke survivors.

Conflicting guidelines and requirements.

One issue with forms for submission of lay summaries is that sometimes conflicting guidelines may be encountered. For example the requirement to write in paragraphs is in tension with the need to fit text within the confined space of a form. Similarly, adding medical terms alongside plain English words for conditions will use up words within a tight word limit count. There is also variation in the word count that is considered suitable for a lay summary. Smith  [25]  found that Research Councils UK allow up to 4000 characters, but the limits set by charities can vary between 100 to 1000 words.

More research is needed into what makes a good lay summary.

Although guidelines are being developed and some commonality can be identified between the guidelines, it is not clear if the practice and advice is grounded in evidence. Next to no research is available on what makes a good summary and there is a scarcity of evidence of lay summaries and guidelines being tested for effectiveness. Smith and Ashmore [26]  note that funders differ in what they expect and there seems to be no consensus in how to write a lay summary.

Services, models of access and use of lay summaries.

Curry [27]  explains his doubts as to whether the public ever access lay summaries. PLoS Medicine reports that there is a low level of interaction by the public using tools for rating, notes, links and threaded discussions provided on their site, and they do not yet have a good understanding for the lack of interaction. [28]   If lay summaries are going to be a means of bringing research to the public, helping to foster relationships between researchers, those that fund the research and those that are impacted by the research, they need to be easy to find, easy to access, easy to navigate, and easy to interact with. This may require different service models, delivery formats and collaboration and coordination between different organisations that are part of the research process. Some charities, such as CancerHelp UK, carry out their own evaluation on what makes for an effective website for the public. The challenge is now for the research community to start recording lessons learnt and find ways to share them.

Gathering evidence of impact.

Organisations may need to justify allocating resource and effort to the writing of lay summaries. Organisations and individuals need to collect information about the impact of their lay summaries as examples of good practice and to be able to demonstrate effectiveness. They may also be able to share examples with the wider community. Individuals may be able to use the impact of lay summaries as evidence for the benefits of their research, to justify further funding into the research area. Furthermore, evidence of the use of lay summaries for the intended purposes would help make the case to researchers.

Further information and bibliography

Association of Medical Research Charities. (2009) Natural Ground: Paths to patient and public involvement for medical research charities. AMRC, October 2009. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from: http://www.amrc.org.uk/our-members_natural-ground:-patient-and-public-involvement-project_ppi:-natural-ground

Asthma UK. Involve people with asthma in your research. Retrieved Mar 20 2011 from: http://www.asthma.org.uk/for_researchers/lay_involvement/involve_people_with.html

Asthma UK. Writing a lay abstract. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from: http://www.asthma.org.uk/for_researchers/lay_involvement/writing_a_lay_abstra.html

Asthma UK. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Asthma UK’s annual grant round. [personal communication]

Asthma UK. Lay Abstract. [personal communication]

CancerHelp UK. Trials database editorial policy. Retrieved May 29, 2013, from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/utilities/about-cancerhelp-uk/cancerhelp-uk-policies/trials-database-editorial-policy

CancerHelp UK. Trials database preforms. Retrieved May 29, 2013, from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/utilities/about-cancerhelp-uk/cancerhelp-uk-policies/trials-database-pro-forma

CancerHelp UK. Editorial policy. Retrieved May 29, 2013, from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/utilities/about-cancerhelp-uk/cancerhelp-uk-policies/editorial-policy/

CancerHelp UK. Writer’s guidelines. Retrieved May 29, 2013, from: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/utilities/about-cancerhelp-uk/cancerhelp-uk-policies/editorial-policy/writers-guidelines

Curry, S. (2008). Run that by me again? On the joys of the lay summary. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from: http://www.lablit.com/article/435

INVOLVE. (2007). The impact of public involvement on research A discussion paper from the INVOLVE Evidence, Knowledge and Learning working group. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from: http://www.conres.co.uk/pdfs/EKLdiscussionpaperfinal170707.pdf

Lindsay, K., Keen, A. (2010). Debate Should the general public be involved in academic research? JISC Inform, issue 27, Spring 2010. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/jiscinform/2010/inform27.aspx#debate

Muscular Dystrophy Campaign. General guidelines for the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign website [personal communication]

Muscular Dystrophy Campaign. How to write up a clinical trial summary [personal communication]

Muscular Dystrophy Campaign. Lay Grant Application Form – Guidance Notes [personal communication].

National co-ordinating centre for public engagement. Method: Writing for non-specialist audiences. Retrieved March 20, 2012 from: http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/why-does-it-matter/case-for-engagement

National co-ordinating centre for public engagement. The case for public engagement Retrieved March 20, 2012 from:  http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/how/methods/writing-non-specialist-audiences

National HE STEM Programme. (2011). Developing writing in STEM disciplines. University of Bath, September 2011. Retrieved May 29, 2013, from: http://www.hestem-sw.org.uk/project?id=5&pp=125

Northern Territories Literacy Council. Write For Your Reader A Plain Language Handbook. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from: http://www.nwt.literacy.ca/resources/plainlang/writread/cover.htm

Northern Territories Literacy Council. Plain Language Audit Tool. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from: http://www.nwt.literacy.ca/resources/plainlang/auditool/cover.htm

Patients Participate! Case Study Report. (2011). Retrieved March 2012 from: http://blogs.ukoln.ac.uk/patientsparticipate/files/2011/10/Case-study-report-Final.pdf

Smith, M. (2009). The Lay Summary in Medical Research - Why and Wherefore. Midlands Medicine vol.25, no.5, pp.191-195. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from http://repository.keele.ac.uk:8080/intralibrary/IntraLibrary?command=open-preview&learning_object_key=i07n311684t

Smith, M and Ashmore, C. (2010). The Lay Summary in medical research proposals – is it becoming more important? Poster presentation at Making an Impact - Annual Conference of the Association of Research Managers and Administrators, Manchester, June 2010. Retrieved April 15, 2013, from http://repository.keele.ac.uk:8080/intralibrary/IntraLibrary?command=open-preview&learning_object_key=i07n311684t

Oswald, N. Make your Manuscripts more readable in 5 minutes per Day. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from:  http://bitesizebio.com/articles/make-your-manuscripts-more-readable-in-5-minutes/

Research Councils UK. Concordat for Engaging the Public with Research. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from: http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/per/Pages/Concordat.aspx

The Stroke Association. Project Grant Plain English Summary. [personal communication]

TwoCan Associates and AMRC. Why Involve Service Users in Research: A route map. Why involve service users? Retrieved April 16, 2013, from: http://www.twocanassociates.co.uk/routemap/why-involve-service-users.php

TwoCan Associates and AMRC. Why Involve Service Users in Research: A route map. Service user involvement in research projects. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from: http://www.twocanassociates.co.uk/routemap/user-involvement-in-research-projects.php

University of Illinois Research Development Services. Writing a Lay Summary. Retrieved March 20, 2012, from:  http://tigger.uic.edu/depts/ovcr/research/funding/writing_summaries.shtml

University of Manchester, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, Graduate and Researcher Development. Tips for Writing A Lay Summary. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from: http://www.researchsupport.eps.manchester.ac.uk/documents/pe/Lay%20Summary%20Writing%20Tips.pdf

University of Manchester, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, Graduate and Researcher Development. What do UK research funding bodies look for in a lay summary. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from: http://www.researchsupport.eps.manchester.ac.uk/documents/pe/Funding%20Bodies%20Lay%20Summaries.pdf

Woolf, L. (2011). A brief guide to writing for a lay audience. Cancer Research UK. [personal communication].

The input of Emma Tonkin, UKOLN, to the review and synthesis of the guidelines for writing lay summaries is gratefully acknowledged. Quotes and guidelines are reused with permission from the AMRC Natural Ground report (2009). This report contained several useful examples of involvement of lay people and case studies from charities’ experiences with lay summaries and lay review. The examples in the Examples section are used with permission from the Patients Participate! case study report (2011).

This resource was produced by the Patients Participate! Project which was funded by the JISC eContent Programme 2011 http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/digitisation/econtent11.aspx The Patients Participate! Project investigated the feasibility of the production of lay summaries of research using a crowdsourcing model. The seven-month project held a workshop, and produced reports, case studies and guides. Further information is available from the project website http://blogs.ukoln.ac.uk/patientsparticipate/

Thank you to Ed Stevens, Alison Evans and Michael Day, University of Bath and Mark Smith, Keele University, for helpful comments.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Res Involv Engagem

A protocol for co-creating research project lay summaries with stakeholders: guideline development for Canada’s AGE-WELL network

Mineko wada.

1 Science and Technology for Aging Research (STAR) Institute, Simon Fraser University, #2800 – 515 West Hastings St., Vancouver, BC V6B 5K3 Canada

Judith Sixsmith

2 School of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Dundee, 11 Airlie Place, Dundee, Scotland DD1 4HJ UK

Gail Harwood

3 411 Seniors Centre Society, #7th Floor – 333 Terminal Avenue, Vancouver, BC V6A 4C1 Canada

Theodore D. Cosco

4 Department of Gerontology, Simon Fraser University, #2800 – 515 West Hastings St., Vancouver, BC V6B 5K3 Canada

5 Oxford Institute of Population Ageing, University of Oxford, 66 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6PR UK

Mei Lan Fang

Andrew sixsmith, associated data.

Not applicable.

Funding bodies increasingly require researchers to write lay summaries to communicate projects’ real-world relevance to the public in an accessible way. However, research proposals and findings are generally not easily readable or understandable by non-specialist readers. Many researchers find writing lay summaries difficult because they typically write for fellow subject specialists or academics rather than the general public or a non-specialist audience. The primary objective of our project is to develop guidelines for researchers in Canada’s AGE-WELL Network of Centres of Excellence, and ultimately various other disciplines, sectors, and institutions, to co-create lay summaries of research projects with stakeholders. To begin, we produced a protocol for co-creating a lay summary based on workshops we organized and facilitated for an AGE-WELL researcher. This paper presents the lay summary co-creation protocol that AGE-WELL researchers will be invited to use.

Eligible participants in this project will be 24 AgeTech project researchers who are funded by the AGE-WELL network in its Core Research Program 2020. If they agree to participate in this project, we will invite them to use our protocol to co-produce a lay summary of their respective projects with stakeholders. The protocol comprises six steps: Investigate principles of writing a good lay summary, identify the target readership, identify stakeholders to collaborate with, recruit the identified stakeholders to work on a lay summary, prepare for workshop sessions, and execute the sessions. To help participants through the process, we will provide them with a guide to developing an accessible, readable research lay summary, help them make decisions, and host, and facilitate if needed, their lay summary co-creation workshops.

Public-facing research outputs, including lay summaries, are increasingly important knowledge translation strategies to promote the impact of research on real-world issues. To produce lay summaries that include information that will interest a non-specialist readership and that are written in accessible language, stakeholder engagement is key. Furthermore, both researchers and stakeholders benefit by participating in the co-creation process. We hope the protocol helps researchers collaborate with stakeholders effectively to co-produce lay summaries that meet the needs of both the public and project funders.

Plain English summary

Funding bodies often require researchers to write lay summaries (summaries in non-scientific language) to share their research with the public and explain its importance. However, researchers typically find lay summaries difficult to write and the public finds them difficult to read. If stakeholders outside the academic sector are involved in writing lay summaries, the summaries are more likely to be understood by the public. Our project aims to develop guidelines for researchers in Canada’s AGE-WELL Network of Centres of Excellence, and eventually in various other disciplines, sectors, and institutions, to help them work with stakeholders to co-create lay summaries. We have created a lay-summary co-creation protocol based on workshops conducted with an AGE-WELL researcher. This paper presents the protocol, which researchers funded by the AGE-WELL Core Research Program 2020 will be invited to use to work with a range of stakeholders to co-produce a lay summary of their projects. The lay-summary co-creation protocol has six steps: Learn the basic steps for writing a good lay summary, identify the target readership, identify stakeholders to work with, recruit stakeholders to work on a lay summary, prepare for workshop sessions, and run the sessions. To help researchers get the most from their experience, we plan to give them a guide to writing a good research lay summary, help them make decisions, and host, and facilitate if necessary, their lay summary co-creation workshops. This protocol would help researchers write effective lay summaries to share their research with a wide group of readers.

A lay summary is a brief synopsis of a research project that explains in plain language its essential components—what, who, where, when, why, and how—to the general public or a target, non-specialist audience [ 1 , 2 ]. It is imperative to develop a lay summary and make it available to the general public for several reasons. First, a lay summary provides a way to communicate to project funders what issue or problem a project aims to solve, why it is important to address the issue or problem, how the researchers aim to solve it, and how the funding will be used in the project. The lay summary also enables members of the public on a funding application review committee to be fully included in the decision-making process and allows the researchers to demonstrate their accountability to the funding bodies [ 3 – 5 ]. Second, rather than being limited to a niche, perhaps academic or specialist, group, a lay summary increases the visibility of a project because it can be made more universally accessible, thereby creating a broader readership and increased awareness of and understanding about the issue that the project aims to address [ 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 ]. However, it should be noted that “accessible” is a relative term and so it must be defined and applied in the specific context of a project and in terms of the aim of the text and its target readership [ 8 ]. Third, a lay summary enables researchers to communicate the real-world relevance of their projects’ implications to the public, and as such, funding bodies are increasingly urging researchers to produce lay summaries that will help improve public awareness and understanding of projects and their overall importance and impact on everyday life [ 3 , 9 , 10 ]. Fourth, in the case of projects that require recruitment of participants, a lay summary can help potential participants understand the study and its goals and decide whether or not to participate [ 3 , 4 ]. Finally, a lay summary that stems from a health or medical study or intervention can inform patients’ decision-making on medical and pharmaceutical interventions, which will help facilitate the adoption of project outputs that can solve the target issue, such as the development or use of a technology product or services [ 3 , 11 , 12 ].

Many researchers are facing increasingly frequent requirements from funders to develop lay summaries, but even those who recognize the benefits of doing so often find the process challenging and cumbersome primarily because they are immersed in an academic scholarship environment. They are thus conditioned to use traditional academic communication channels (via research proposals, peer-reviewed articles, and conference papers and posters) and specialized academic language [ 6 , 7 ]. Academic writing frequently draws heavily on jargon and other subject-specific terminology, which can come across as difficult or opaque to lay readers. Using academic writing practices to disseminate newfound knowledge is therefore fundamentally exclusionary and runs counter to the current movement towards meaningful stakeholder participation, inclusive research, and co-creation methods. If academic/research institutions, researchers, and funders are claiming to strive for equity, diversity, and inclusion and want those claims to be taken seriously, they must communicate information in an open and accessible way to enhance inclusivity. This requires a significantly different approach to traditional methods of communicating research, not only in terms of how the research is presented (language level, amount of detail, medium of communication, for example) but also in terms of who is involved in the process of creating (writing) the information (e.g., stakeholders with limited knowledge of current developments in science and state of the art research). However, there appears to be a certain reticence among researchers to undertake a more collaborative model of research, possibly because of a reluctance to deviate from prevailing traditional academic expectations and cultures [ 13 ]. Until researchers both understand the benefits of producing and using a lay summary and master the relevant processes and techniques involved, they may perceive this requirement as an unnecessary burden [ 3 ] or as another barrier to publishing peer-reviewed papers [ 7 ] or gaining research funding.

Collaborative team approach: stakeholder involvement in the research process

Patient and public participation is an increasingly popular approach to research [ 14 ], and a collaborative team approach is proving to be essential in various fields of research and practice [ 13 , 15 – 17 ]. The collaborative research approach involves academics/scientists collaborating with stakeholders from different disciplinary and sectoral backgrounds (e.g., older adults, caregivers, community organizations, industries, policymakers) to foster knowledge exchange and integration across disciplines and sectors [ 18 ]. This process of cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral knowledge exchange and integration promotes a co-production of knowledge that transcends disciplinary and sectoral boundaries [ 15 , 18 ]. Such an approach is essential for understanding and addressing complex, real-world problems because they are context-specific, needs-driven, and multifaceted, all of which renders the implementation of a traditional, uni-disciplinary approach inadequate [ 15 , 18 ]. The collaborative team approach requires researchers to work with stakeholders as research partners from the outset to identify a real-world problem, understand the multilayered issues that surround it, co-develop project objectives, and co-design and implement the project [ 18 ].

The process of creating a lay summary is an inherently collaborative one: ensuring that researchers work on an equal footing with key stakeholders at an early project proposal stage is critical to their fully understanding each stakeholder’s language ability and literacy level, as well as their interest in, experience of, and knowledge level of an issue that a project aims to address [ 11 , 19 ]. In particular, incorporating lay perspectives into research is perceived as beneficial for facilitating understandings of problem areas and increasing a research team’s capacity to generate more effective solutions [ 13 , 20 , 21 ]. The integration of lay perspectives is also politically mandatory, as the general public technically own publicly funded research and are entitled to have their voices heard and to legitimize decisions [ 22 ]. Lay people who are involved in research as research partners can also benefit directly from their involvement, as demonstrated by Duke [ 14 ] and Wada and colleagues [ 13 ]. Both studies identified empowerment, social engagement and connectedness, inclusivity, and skills and knowledge development as potential benefits that lay people can gain through involvement in research projects.

While general guidelines for writing a lay summary tend to provide tips on content and word choice [ 23 ], few of them contain sufficient detail to expand researchers’ understanding of how to create a lay summary that communicates scientific knowledge effectively to the general public or a non-specialist target readership [ 9 , 24 ]. In addition, while collaborating with key stakeholders is often critical for developing a lay summary that is written in accessible language and includes information that is relevant to the target readership, to date there have been few guidelines that can help researchers navigate the process of co-creating a lay summary with stakeholders [ 12 ].

Project context

This project is part of an ongoing priority in AGE-WELL NCE (Aging Gracefully across Environments using Technology to Support Wellness, Engagement and Long Life), a Pan-Canadian Network of Centres of Excellence (NCE) focusing on aging and technology. In 2019–2020, AGE-WELL funded 24 projects focused on developing technology-based solutions to address issues experienced by older adults and caregivers. As AGE-WELL explicitly advocates a focus on real-world impacts and the implementation of collaborative team research within the network, there is a growing need for guidelines to help researchers co-develop key outputs of their projects with stakeholders, such as lay summaries of their projects. Accordingly, the primary objective of our project is to develop lay summary co-creation guidelines for AGE-WELL researchers that will ultimately be made widely available to researchers across a variety of disciplines, sectors, and institutions. We began this project by producing a protocol for co-creating a lay summary that consists of a series of steps based on feedback and reflections from an AGE-WELL researcher and older adults who attended co-creation workshops we organized and facilitated for the researcher. The protocol was therefore a collaborative effort. This paper aims to present the lay summary co-creation protocol that 24 AGE-WELL–funded researchers will be invited to use.

Participants

Eligible participants will be researchers who have funding for AGE-WELL’s Core Research Program 2020 (CRP).

Recruitment

We will recruit participants by sending an email to the 24 CRP researchers. It will describe the aims of the project, include a guide to creating a good lay summary of research projects, and provide contact information for the principal investigator of the project.

Co-creating lay summaries of research project with stakeholders: protocol

Figure  1 illustrates the protocol for co-creating project lay summaries with stakeholders: investigate principles of writing a good lay summary, identify the target readership, identify key stakeholders, recruit them, prepare for co-creating lay summary workshops, and execute the workshops. We will guide participants in navigating the lay-summary co-creating process via one-on-one consultations. In particular, once participants have identified the target readership for their respective lay summaries, we will host, and facilitate if needed, workshops with them and their identified stakeholders to enable the co-production of lay summaries of their CRP project.

Process of co-creating project lay summaries with stakeholders

Investigate principles of writing a good lay summary

We will provide a guide to developing a good lay summary of research (Additional file  1 ) to 24 participants once they have agreed to be involved in this project. The guide comprises four sections (Fig.  2 ). Drawing from the literature on and available guidelines for developing a lay summary, we include a definition of a lay summary and explain why it is important to create one. We also emphasize that identifying the target readership is a critical step as it informs participants about what information needs to be included in a lay summary and what language, or literacy, level the lay summary needs to be written in. Additionally, the guide explains the basic principles of writing a good lay summary, with a particular focus on precision and succinctness and the use of plain language. The guide also contains five questions that should be answered in a lay summary—1) What problem needs to be addressed? 2) What are the aims of the project? 3) How will the project be carried out? 4) Why is the project important? and 5) What are the expected outcomes or impacts of the project?—and includes examples of the responses to these questions.

Four components of the guide to developing a good lay summary of research

Identify the target readership

Participants will identify the target readership for their lay summaries. While a lay summary is generally targeted at the general public, it is also broad in scope [ 6 ]. Defining the readership at the outset is critical to the development of an accessible and compelling lay summary because it determines the level of interest in an issue that a project seeks to address, the knowledge level about the issue, the language, or literacy, levels of the target readership, and the ultimate format of the lay summary [ 3 , 11 , 25 ]. For example, guidelines for target reading levels in lay summaries vary from Grade 6 to Grade 10 reading levels [ 4 , 11 , 26 ]. However, while a Grade 8 reading level is standard for newspapers and is thus often seen as offering a general assessment of reading levels among the general public [ 11 ], Nunn and Pinfield [ 5 ] note that reading levels vary among readerships and that readers with a high literacy level tend to be the group that benefits most from a lay summary. This means that a large segment of the general public will potentially not be in a position to benefit from a lay summary. To minimize this risk, it is therefore important to think carefully about who the target readership is, whose perspectives need to be integrated into a lay summary (e.g., older adults, caregivers, funders, researchers), and why the lay summary is being created (e.g., to recruit participants in a project, to increase awareness of an issue to be resolved in a group of people who experience the issue).

Identify stakeholders to collaborate with

Keeping in mind the target readership identified, participants will then decide which stakeholders to collaborate with to create their project lay summaries. Essentially, some stakeholders involved in the co-creation process should represent the target readership of the lay summary, because they are the most likely group to provide pertinent insight and perspectives. It is therefore important to have a clear understanding of what type of perspectives and expertise will be of most value to a lay summary in terms of its meeting the needs of the identified target readership. Furthermore, taking into account who will benefit from being directly involved in the process (e.g., empowerment, awareness of the project and its aims), and how they will benefit (e.g., increased knowledge about potential solutions), might help participants identify which stakeholders to work with. Ideally, participants and key stakeholders should collaborate at every stage of developing the lay summary to optimize participants’ opportunities to spontaneously learn, discuss, negotiate, and integrate different perspectives. This level of collaboration facilitates an iterative and more organic co-creation process, and thus the resulting lay summary is more likely to be fit for purpose and mutually agreeable.

Recruit identified stakeholders to work on a lay summary

Once participants have identified who to collaborate with in co-creating a lay summary, they start the recruitment process. This step can be a challenge, as lay-summary co-creation requires particular time commitment from stakeholders. Participants must ensure the identified stakeholders will be available to attend any face-to-face co-creation sessions, but family caregivers, for example, may have difficulty attending sessions during the day unless they can find someone to replace them at home. Participants must therefore be prepared to be flexible in terms of the formats and timings for meetings for the co-creation process.

Participants must give careful consideration to the optimum number of stakeholders to recruit for the co-creation process. A group of 6–10 with relatively diverse backgrounds may introduce different ideas and perspectives but reaching a consensus could prove challenging. In contrast, a group of 2–4 may result in more focused discussion and streamline the co-writing, co-revising, and co-editing process, but the scope of diversity is necessarily more restricted.

Recruitment methods will vary. A multi-methods approach can be effective as it addresses people’s different preferences for and accessibility to various communication methods (e.g., flyers, emails, social media platforms). Approaching community organizations and groups to which target stakeholders are likely to belong and asking them to circulate recruitment notices to their members (e.g., seniors’ centre, patient groups, family caregiver associations) would increase the number of target stakeholders that participants can reach out to. Regardless of which medium is used, all the objectives and expectations of the project need to be clearly and concisely expressed. For instance, participants may state the overall objective of the co-creation process: “To write, in simple language, a summary of a project that investigates how family caregivers manage giving medication to older adults living with dementia.” If the process extends over multiple sessions, the objective of each session may be described: “The first session focuses on developing a shared understanding of the project” and “the second session focuses on discussing a drafted lay summary and finalizing it.”

Prepare workshop sessions

Participants will prepare for their lay-summary co-creation workshops by making decisions about the number of co-creation workshop sessions they plan to have, and the objectives of each session. The number of sessions that will be needed to complete a lay summary should be calculated based on the availability, skills, and experiences of the participating stakeholders. For example, if a wide range of stakeholders are invited, and includes stakeholders who do not consider themselves to be writers in any way, the writing process may take longer.

Participants will identify and explain the objectives of each session to stakeholders prior to the workshop. For example: “The first session aims to develop a shared understanding of a project, and the second session will focus on writing, revising, and/or editing a lay summary.” For each session, participants will plan what instructions and guidance they will give to stakeholders before they come to sessions so that both groups can make best use of their time. For example, participants will consider 1) sharing an academic research proposal or the original summary prior to the first session with the stakeholders, and 2) developing and sharing glossaries of key terms used in the original research proposal and summary. It is also important to inform stakeholders what they are expected to do prior to the sessions (e.g., read the original summary, identify language they do not understand, and be ready to discuss the summary in a session) as well as during the sessions.

Execute workshop sessions

A participant may start a session by welcoming stakeholders, setting ground rules and expectations for the session (e.g., respect for different perspectives and ideas), and briefly explaining the objectives of the co-creation process as well as of each session (if there will be more than one session). The participant may then present an overview of their project to the stakeholders, followed by a Q & A about it. During the Q & A phase, stakeholders may request further clarification of key concepts of a project, which may lead to discussion about potential simple terms to describe them. After the Q & A, a participant may introduce and discuss the structure of a lay summary (e.g., problems/challenges, objectives, methods, and impacts). Key ideas about each section of a lay summary will be discussed. Small group activities may be a more effective approach for identifying key ideas to be included in a lay summary if stakeholders are introverted or otherwise hesitant to offer an opinion. A participant may end the session by sharing experiences of the co-creation process among the stakeholders. Throughout the session, a participant may have a facilitator present to help not only with time management but also with discussing and developing ideas put forward by stakeholders and a participant. Figure  3 presents an example of a first session.

An example of a first workshop session

Writing a lay summary based on the identified key ideas may be done in a subsequent session. Alternatively, at the end of the first session, the participant might invite stakeholders to draft a lay summary outside the scheduled sessions, although this is dependent on stakeholders’ motivation, availability, and skills.

Ethical procedures

Ethical approval is not required for this project because its objective is to improve the quality of services and resources for promoting and supporting collaborative team research for researchers within the AGE-WELL network. According to Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, quality assurance and quality improvement studies do not constitute research and thus do not require a Research Ethics Board review [ 27 ].

A lay summary is one example of the types of public-facing research outputs that are becoming increasingly important to project funders and the general public. This paper has presented a protocol for co-creating lay summaries of research projects with stakeholders based on lay-summary co-creation workshops we conducted with one AGE-WELL researcher. Reflections and feedback from the researcher and stakeholders who participated in the workshops on the co-creation process have been incorporated into the protocol. A catalyst for the development of the co-creation protocol was the recognition that many lay summaries published to date are not fit for purpose. It is a challenge to produce lay summaries that include information that will interest a target readership and are written in accessible language [ 3 ].

Initial feedback on the lay summary protocol suggested that researchers—and by association, projects—might not have the capacity to engage in the co-creation of lay summaries. However, this argument is becoming less relevant as collaborative team approaches and meaningful involvement of stakeholders increasingly become standard practice . The creation of lay summaries should not be treated as a necessary evil that gets tacked onto the real part of the research; it is an essential knowledge translation activity. Stakeholder engagement is critical for project planning and so should be adequately resourced in the same way that the “core” aspects of a project are planned and resourced. This may also include compensation and reimbursement for lay people who are involved in the co-creation process.

In terms of resources, funders and researchers need to consider the benefits—or added value—of co-creating lay summaries. A key aim of the development of our protocol is to position the production of lay summaries as part of a co-creation approach to research, particularly in the early stages of a project when the members of a project group are developing a shared understanding of its aims, approaches, and methods. This forces the researchers to think in terms of the target group whose issues they aim to address and engages the whole team (researchers and stakeholders) in reflecting critically on the ideas, objectives, and methods of the project. The production of lay summaries could be seen as a milestone and deliverable from the first stage of the co-creation process and as a way of building relationships and mutual trust within a team. It is envisaged that the project group will continuously update the lay summary, as well as co-create other public-facing outputs. Co-creation benefits researchers and funders as it fosters the production of more effective solutions to real-world problems through cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral knowledge integration [ 13 , 15 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 28 ].

The benefits of participating in the process of co-creating lay summaries may be as important as those offered by the final lay summary. Our experience in developing the protocol led us to identify several potential benefits of participating in the process:

• It can foster an effective working relationship within the project team (researchers and stakeholders).
• It can help both researchers and stakeholders better understand the co-creation process because the lay summary co-creation is an early stage of the overall co-creation process that will be applied throughout the lifetime of a project.
• It can validate the roles and contributions of stakeholders in a project, thus awarding them a greater sense of accomplishment.
• It can help researchers critically evaluate their ideas and proposal, prior to the main research phase.

Strengths and limitations

Last, it should be noted that the protocol we developed is not without limitations. First, it focuses on supporting researchers as they navigate their way through co-producing lay summaries with stakeholders, and thus may not be useful to other groups of people who intend to develop lay summaries with stakeholders (e.g., funders, community organizations). Second, the protocol is a work in progress and its effectiveness needs to be evaluated. Despite some of the gaps, a key strength is that it offers one of the first step-by-step guides for researchers to co-produce project lay summaries with stakeholders. We hope that it will also serve as a tool that helps researchers not only to recognize the multiple values of collaborating with stakeholders but also to produce lay summaries that benefit both the public and project funders.

Supplementary information

Acknowledgements.

The authors thank participants in the initial lay summary co-creation workshops for their time and effort to develop a lay summary and provide feedback on the process and current protocol.

Authors’ contributions

MW, JS, TDC, MLF, and AS contributed to designing the protocol of the initial co-creation workshops. After the workshops, all authors reflected on the co-creation process. MW drafted the protocol based on their reflections and feedback from participants in the workshops, and all authors contributed to revising and editing the protocol. The final manuscript was approved by all authors.

This project is funded by Canada’s AGE-WELL NCE to support the cross-cutting activity cluster on Transdisciplinary Working.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval is not required for this project because its objective is to improve the quality of services and resources for promoting and supporting transdisciplinary working for researchers within the AGE-WELL network. According to Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, quality assurance and quality improvement studies do not constitute research and thus do not require a Research Ethics Board review [ 27 ].

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s40900-020-00197-3.

• Open access
• Published: 20 December 2023

Recommended characteristics and processes for writing lay summaries of healthcare evidence: a co-created scoping review and consultation exercise

• Sareh Zarshenas 1 ,
• JoAnne Mosel 2 ,
• Adora Chui 3 ,
• Samantha Seaton 1 , 4 ,
• Hardeep Singh 1 , 4 , 5 ,
• Sandra Moroz 2 ,
• Tayaba Khan 2 ,
• Sherrie Logan 1 &
• Heather Colquhoun 1 , 4  

Research Involvement and Engagement volume  9 , Article number:  121 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

1216 Accesses

11 Altmetric

Metrics details

Lay summaries (LSs) of scientific evidence are critical to sharing research with non-specialist audiences. This scoping review with a consultation exercise aimed to (1) Describe features of the available LS resources; (2) Summarize recommended LS characteristics and content; (3) Outline recommended processes to write a LS; and (4) Obtain stakeholder perspectives on LS characteristics and writing processes.

This project was a patient and public partner (PPP)-initiated topic co-led by a PPP and a researcher. The team was supported by three additional PPPs and four researchers. A search of peer-reviewed (Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane libraries, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC and PubMed data bases) and grey literature was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodological Guidance for Scoping Reviews to include any resource that described LS characteristics and writing processes. Two reviewers screened and extracted all resources. Resource descriptions and characteristics were organized by frequency, and processes were inductively analyzed. Nine patient and public partners and researchers participated in three consultation exercise sessions to contextualize the review findings.

Of the identified 80 resources, 99% described characteristics of a LS and 13% described processes for writing a LS. About half (51%) of the resources were published in the last two years. The most recommended characteristics were to avoid jargon (78%) and long or complex sentences (60%). The most frequently suggested LS content to include was study findings (79%). The key steps in writing a LS were doing pre-work, preparing for the target audience, writing, reviewing, finalizing, and disseminating knowledge. Consultation exercise participants prioritized some LS characteristics differently compared to the literature and found many characteristics oversimplistic. Consultation exercise participants generally supported the writing processes found in the literature but suggested some refinements.

Conclusions

Writing LSs is potentially a growing area, however, efforts are needed to enhance our understanding of important LS characteristics, create resources with and for PPPs, and develop optimal writing processes.

Plain English summary

This study was suggested by a patient partner to place attention on the role patient and public partners (PPPs) could play in developing lay summaries. A lay summary (LS) is a summary of a research project written for members of the public, including patients. A lot of information is written about recommendations for LSs, but none of it has been summarized. This study: (1) Pulled together and summarized all existing resources that made recommendations on features of LSs and/or the steps for writing them; and (2) Conducted meetings with people interested in LSs (PPPs and researchers) to gather their perspectives on this summary of resources. The study engaged PPPs in all aspects, including co-leadership. We found 80 resources on LSs. Almost all (95%) of the resources were written by researchers for researchers, with only 18% involving PPPs. The most common recommendations were to avoid jargon (78%) and remove unnecessary and complex words (60%). Only 13% of the resources had information about the steps for writing a LS. People in our meetings did not always agree with the recommended LS characteristics and found them overly simplistic. They felt that identifying and writing for the intended audience of the LS was important, every study should have a LS, PPPs should have the opportunity to be involved, and greater attention should be paid to the steps involved in writing a LS. Lay summary development is a complex, multistep process requiring the inclusion of PPPs for their irreplaceable perspectives and contributions.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Lay summaries (LSs) are a critical knowledge translation strategy to communicate healthcare research evidence to patient and public partners (PPPs) [ 1 , 2 ]. By bridging gaps between research evidence and patient and public comprehension, LSs can facilitate more meaningful conversations about healthcare research and its implications, potentially resulting in more informed healthcare decision-making [ 3 , 4 ]. As defined by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) a lay summary is “a research project or a research proposal summary that has been written for members of the public, rather than researchers or professionals” [ 5 ]. LSs should avoid jargon, explain technical terms, and use plain language [ 5 ].

There is a growing interest and effort in publishing LSs of healthcare evidence. Various institutions and knowledge brokers, such as agencies (e.g., Canadian Frailty Network [ 6 ], MS Canada [ 7 ]), journals, and publishers (e.g., Taylor and Francis [ 8 ], Wiley [ 9 ]), offer guidance for writing LSs. The Cochrane Collaboration has developed plain language summary guidance specifically for Cochrane reviews, which includes a template and plain language summary preparation steps [ 10 ]. In 2018, the European Clinical Trial Regulation 536/2014 (EU-CTR) launched the second version of its guidance on producing clinical trial summaries for lay persons [ 11 ]. This document includes a template to help authors write LSs for clinical trials and contains a framework that describes specific LS characteristics across seven over-arching principles [i.e., general principles (e.g., develop the summary for a general public audience), health literacy principles and writing style (e.g., text should be proper for people with a low to average level of literacy), readability and use of plain language (e.g., sentences should be kept short and concise), numeracy (e.g., numerical data should be easily understandable), visuals (e.g., using well-chosen and clearly designed visual aids), language (e.g., using a local language), and communication of results with participants (e.g., presenting results to patients and receive their feedback)] [ 11 ].

The significance of involving PPPs in the development, implementation, and dissemination of health-related evidence is increasingly being acknowledged, particularly in the realm of knowledge translation strategies [ 4 , 12 , 13 ]. Despite growing interest in LS guidance, a wide range of guidance documents are dispersed across many health and healthcare sectors with uncertainty on the optimal LS characteristics and processes for writing LSs [ 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. These challenges are particularly pronounced for PPPs seeking to participate in the LS writing processes [ 14 ]. Although the primary aim of a LS is to facilitate access to scientific evidence, role of PPPs in the writing of LSs has been less well-established [ 3 , 15 , 16 , 17 ].

The aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review of existing LS guidance specific to recommended LS characteristics (i.e., what LSs should look like) and writing processes (i.e., how best to write a LS). We further aimed to conduct a consultation exercise with a range of PPPs and researchers interested in LSs to obtain knowledge user perspectives on the results of the scoping review.

Our specific objectives were to:

Describe the features of available LS resources regarding source type (i.e., peer-reviewed, grey literature), country, publication year, focus (i.e., LS characteristics, LS writing process, both), PPP involvement in the guidance creation (i.e., yes/no), specified target audience, and specific context (e.g., reviews, clinical trials) or condition (e.g., autism).

Summarize recommended LS characteristics and content using an adapted version of the EU-CTR framework principles (i.e., health literacy principles and writing style, readability and use of plain language, numeracy, visuals, and language) [ 11 ].

Summarize recommended processes for writing a LS.

Obtain stakeholder perspectives (i.e., PPPs and researchers) on LS characteristics and writing processes (i.e., results of objectives 2 and 3).

Study design

A scoping review with a consultation exercise was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodological Guidance for Scoping Reviews [ 18 ] and was reported by employing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews-PRISMA- ScR) [ 19 ]. A protocol of this project was published with detailed information on methodology [ 20 ]. We conducted electronic searches on eight databases, including Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane libraries, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and PubMed (see online supplemental file 2 for an example of the Ovid MEDLINE search strategy). Additionally, grey literature was searched to ensure the inclusion of relevant health documents from governmental and non-governmental agencies, organizations, and community associations. Our grey literature search strategy involved (a) following The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health guidance for health-related grey literature searches, (b) searching for pertinent documents on the first 10 pages of Google, and (c) seeking suggestions from research team members for additional resources. The grey literature search limited to English language countries, including Canada, the USA, the UK, and Australia. Furthermore, we supplemented our research by manually inspecting the reference lists of selected articles to identify related documents that might not have been captured in the aforementioned search strategies (Additional file 1 : Table S1, databases search strategy).

The consultation exercise was approved by the research ethics board of the University of Toronto (REB approval number: 43453). Participants submitted a signed written consent in compliance with the approved Research Ethics Board (REB) requirements prior to engaging in the consultation exercise.

Patient and public partners involvement

This project was conceived and initiated by a PPP (JM) and funded by the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research-Evidence Alliance (SPOR-EA) [ 21 ]. The SPOR-EA is jointly funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) under the SPOR initiative, and it includes 41 partners from public and not-for-profit sectors across Canada [ 22 ]. In 2021 the SPOR Evidence Alliance initiated a funding opportunity in which PPPs submitted research questions to be prioritized for funding and to guide the research efforts of the Alliance. The topic of LSs was submitted by our PPP based on years of LS advocacy work and the need to increase access to high quality LSs of scientific evidence. The original proposal was to synthesize the literature that supports PPPs in writing LSs of scientific evidence. The SPOR-EA acknowledged the significance of this topic to PPPs and its potential impact and funded this work; however, an initial scoping search showed a scarcity of existing literature on this topic [ 13 ]. Thus, our team embarked on an iterative process of refining the original intent into the objectives presented here.

The project was co-led by a PPP (JM) and a researcher (HC). The team included four additional researchers (SZ, AC, HS, SS), and three PPPs (SM, TK, SL). PPPs were full members of the research team as they provided input on all project processes. Monthly team meetings occurred throughout the project with weekly meetings between the two co-leads at various time points in which the PPP co-lead input was critical (e.g., planning the consultation exercise). To facilitate PPP engagement, the integrated Knowledge Translation (iKT) approach was applied to this study [ 23 ]. Detailed information regarding applying the iKT approach was provided in the protocol [ 20 ]. PPPs engaged in learning opportunities related to screening citations and one PPP (SL) was the second screener/extractor. Our team created an infographic of the study roadmap that serves as a valuable tool for improving communication and comprehension of the scoping review process (Additional file 2 : Fig. S2). To provide detailed information on our PPP involvement, we used the short form of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patient and the Public (GRIPP)-2 [ 24 ] (Table  1 ).

Eligibility criteria

Peer-reviewed articles and grey literature documents were included in the scoping review if they: (a) pertained to healthcare, (b) described guidance, recommendations, strategies, or suggestions for LS characteristics and/or writing processes. Non-full text and non-English language resources were excluded due to the limitation of human and material resources required for searching and data extraction process. Resources were not restricted by publication year, context (e.g., review), or health conditions (e.g., autism). Studies that examined different types of LSs, investigated perspectives of knowledge users on LSs, or explored the effects of patient involvement in writing LSs were excluded since these studies do not typically provide specific recommendations for LS characteristics or writing processes. Similarly, studies specific to health literacy were not included as they did not directly align with our central question. Conference abstracts were also omitted due to their limited level of detail. To draw attention to the impact of PPP healthcare decision-making and LSs, we excluded resources specific to guidance on writing manuscripts, summaries for trial participants, animal studies, the needs of policy makers, and increasing PPPs understanding of research in general.

Sources of data, search strategies and data collection

A search strategy was created by SZ in consultation with HC and an information specialist at the University of Toronto [ 20 ]. To enhance the comprehensiveness of the search strategy, Peer-Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) criteria [ 25 ] were used. Peer-reviewed articles were searched electronically using the following eight databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane libraries, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and PubMed [ 20 ] and updated on May 30th, 2022. Additionally, grey literature was searched to ensure retrieval of relevant health related LS documents in governmental and non-governmental agencies, organizations, and community associations. To facilitate our grey literature search process, we utilized the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health’s guidance (CADTH’s) “Grey Matters” checklist [ 26 ]. We used key search terms such as "lay summary writing," "lay abstract," and "plain language summary guidance" to search relevant websites. We also employed the Google search engine, adhering to the guidance outlined by the University of Toronto library [ 27 ]. Lastly, we used the expertise of our team to ensure all resources were explored and searched for any links we found in peer-reviewed articles. We also conducted a thorough hand-search of the reference lists of included resources, ensuring that all potential avenues for available resources were explored.

Data screening

All peer-reviewed articles obtained from the databases were compiled and duplicates were eliminated using Endnote software. Two reviewers (SZ, SL) independently screened the titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles using the Covidence review platform [ 28 ] and evaluated the full texts of the relevant articles based on our inclusion criteria. Grey literature was similarly screened by the same reviewers. To ensure a rigorous screening of the grey literature, each reviewer independently assessed every resource against the pre-determined inclusion criteria. To facilitate the consensus-building process and address any discrepancies or uncertainties, a third person (HC) was present in all consensus meetings.

Data extraction

An a priori data extraction guide was created in collaboration with the team. To organize the LS characteristics, we adapted the EU-CTR framework [ 11 ]. While this framework, as one of the most comprehensive approaches to LS guidance, was a useful starting point, adaptations were necessary to avoid duplication or double-barreled characteristics (e.g., “Removing unnecessary or complex words and/or avoiding long sentences”), procedural characteristics (e.g., "Sponsors should note that there is no limit placed on the size of the lay summary document that will be uploaded as a PDF document”), and characteristics that were being described in our other objectives (e.g., characteristics specific to whether PPPs were involved). The final adapted EU-CTR Framework had 29 characteristics across five principles. Over the course of extraction, nine additional characteristics were added based on their absence from the EU framework and perceived importance by the research team (i.e., indicating a funders’/ sponsors’ name, ensuring availability of LS soon after the study publication, avoiding oversimplifying, mentioning search date/timescale, focusing on the person not the disability, framing language of sentences in the positive way, ensuring LS is indexed in PubMed, spelling out abbreviations, and using inclusive language). There were three characteristics in which we chose to extract an additional level of detail considering the range of presented detail in the resources (i.e., word count, readability test and reading level).

To focus broadly on LSs, we did not extract information from the resources that was specific to a context or condition. For example, a resource that recommended LS characteristics specific to drug trials (e.g., ensure to describe the drug itself) or systematic reviews (e.g., approaches to describing summary tables). To ensure consistency and clarity of the data extraction guide, we conducted multiple pilots of 5% of both peer-reviewed and grey literature resources. The piloting process was completed after reaching 80% agreement between reviewers.

The final extracted variables included: Objective (1) guidance features including source type (i.e., peer-reviewed, grey literature), authors for peer reviewed/organizations for grey literature, country of publication, year, PPP involvement in the guidance creation (i.e., yes/no), target group for the guidance, and if guidance was focused on a specific context (e.g., reviews, clinical trials) or condition (e.g., autism), Objective (2) 29 adapted EU-CTR characteristics (i.e., yes; no), nine additional non-EU-CTR characteristics determined during extraction, three specifications of EU-CTR recommendations (i.e., word count, readability test, reading level), and recommendations for LS content, and Objective (3) the steps for processes to write a LS.

Data analysis

Descriptive quantitative analysis was used to address objectives 1 and 2 by summarizing and presenting numerical information on the importance of characteristics by rank ordering characteristics in the reviewed literature according to their frequency (n, %). This approach helped in gaining insights into the most prevalent and therefore noteworthy characteristics within the scope of the study.

For the LS writing processes, all recommended steps were summarized and organized in a Microsoft Excel file. We then documented the sub-components of each step, allowing us to create a summary of the processes while still describing each one individually.

Consultation exercise

Anticipating limited PPP inclusion in the literature, a consultation exercise was conducted. The overall aim of the consultation exercise was to engage a group of PPPs and researchers in contextualizing the scoping review results related to (1) the recommended LS characteristics; and (2) the suggested LS writing processes. These two review areas were prioritized for the consultation exercise due to their relevance to our team PPPs. The consultation exercise participants inclusion criteria included: (1) Interest in the concept of LSs and/or experience in writing/using LSs for health decision making; and (2) Fluency in English. The planned PPP-to-researcher participant ratio was 3:1 to prioritize PPP input while recognizing that the co-creation of LSs with PPPs and researchers is likely good practice. This ratio was a decision made by the entire research team, including our PPPs. They were recruited using a purposeful sampling approach by distributing the study flyer through the SPOR-EA network in Canada. It should be noted that none of the participants of the consultation exercise were members of the research team, including research team members who were PPPs.

Using the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) steps as a guide to design our consultation exercise activity [ 29 ] which is explained comprehensively in the study protocol [ 20 ], three sessions, each two hours long, were held on Zoom over a five-week period in February and March 2023. All sessions were co-facilitated by the lead researcher (HC) and a patient partner (SL), and all members of the research team attended as observers and note takers. Two weeks prior to the first session, participants were sent a set of materials that included a consent form, participants’ and research team’s bios, an agenda, and a list of LS characteristics with definitions and examples. Participants submitted a signed written consent in compliance with the approved Research Ethics Board (REB) requirements prior to engaging in the consultation exercise. Various engagement techniques were utilized, including reviewing a set of ground rules created by the research team to create an open, inclusive, and welcoming environment for participants during the sessions. Sessions were audio recorded and held via a secure Zoom link. All participants were provided with an honorarium.

The objective of the first session was to determine the differences in importance placed on each LS characteristic between the scoping review results and our consultation exercise group. The characteristics were reviewed briefly without being ranked based on the scoping review. Subsequently, participants engaged in both small and large group discussions to collectively establish consensus on categorizing these characteristics into three groups: (1) very important, (2) moderately important, or (3) less important. Consensus was achieved by deliberating on the importance of each characteristic, with the facilitator encouraging, documenting, and confirming what the group determined as the level of importance for each characteristic.

Following categorization, participants were shown how their priorities differed from the scoping review priorities (represented as the characteristics organized into three groupings, rank ordered from most to least frequently suggested).

The objective of the second and third sessions was to obtain participant perspectives on the suggested processes for writing a LS. First, an infographic was presented which our team created based on scoping review findings to present the processes and their associated steps in an understandable manner (Additional file 3 : Fig. S3. Infographic). Second, a large group discussion took place on three questions: “What did the processes in the literature get right? What did they get wrong? and What is missing?” The third session was a continuation of the second but included four additional probing questions for each of the writing processes suggested by participants at the end of the second session: “How can we create the conditions for the involvement of PPPs? What is the best way to involve PPPs in pre-work? In what ways should this process be flexible? and What is missing from the current process?” The intent was to achieve consensus on the preferred steps and to establish guiding principles for each step. After the third session, a summary of the writing processes was shared with the participants as a member checking exercise to ensure accuracy of our summary.

After each consultation exercise session, the research team (i.e., researchers and PPPs) attended one-hour analysis meetings to review and discuss the sessions, review the notes taken and confirm specific plans for subsequent sessions. These analysis meetings were crucial in ensuring the inclusion of the research team PPPs in the analysis of the consultation exercise. The consultation exercise results were a combination of the work done at the sessions and the research team's review of the summary of the session results and activities. Lastly, the final set of characteristics, organized by importance, was compared between the scoping review results and the consultation exercise results.

The search process yielded a total of 2,612 sources, including 2,477 peer-reviewed articles and 135 grey literature documents. After removing duplicates, 1950 records were screened based on their title and abstract followed by screening of 257 full text. Of these, 177 documents were excluded with the most common reason for peer-reviewed articles being the lack of recommendations on the LS characteristics and writing processes, and for grey literature, a focus on health literacy. There were 80 resources included in the review: 15 from the peer-reviewed literature and 65 from the grey literature. (Fig.  1 PRISMA chart) (Additional file 4 : Table S4, scoping review resources and extracted characteristics/features).

PRISMA Chart. * LS: Lay Summary, ( http://www.prisma-statement.org/ )

Description of resources

The majority (n = 65, 80%) of the 80 included resources were from grey literature. The United Kingdom (30%), Canada (24%), and the United States (24%) were the countries with the most resources. The resources were published between 2012 and 2022, with the largest percentage (35%) in 2022. There were 79 (99%) resources recommending LS characteristics and 10 (13%) resources recommending processes for writing a LS. Twenty-two (28%) of resources were specific to a condition, such as Autism or Dermatology, and 30 (38%) were specific to a context, such as clinical trials. There were 76 (95%) resources targeted at researchers and 4 (5%) targeted at other stakeholders including PPPs, policy makers, and funders. PPPs were involved in the creation of 14 (18%) of reviewed resources. See Table  2 for a complete summary of the description of included resources.

Suggested LS characteristics

Thirty-eight LS characteristics were extracted (Table  3 ). The most often suggested characteristics were avoiding jargon, technical, medical, or scientific language (78%), avoiding complex and long sentences (60%), and using active rather than passive voice (48%). The remaining characteristics were suggested between 30 and 1% of the documents. All characteristics were suggested at least once.

Readability tool, reading level, and word count

A total of 24 resources (30%) recommended the use of readability tools. The most common were Flesch-Kincaid (66%), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (29%), Readable.io (16.6%) (Table  4 ).

A total of 24 resources (30%) identified reading level as a key characteristic of a LS. The most recommended level was grades 9–12 (high school or ages 14–18) at 21% (Table  5 ).

A total of 35 (48%) resources provided a specific numerical value for the length of a LS. Fifteen resources (43%) suggested a range of 150–250 words and about fourteen resources (40%) suggested a word limit between 250 and 500 words (Table  6 ).

Fifty-three (66%) resources contained recommendations on the content of a LS (Table  7 ). The most common included the "What", the main findings of the study, (n = 42, 79%), the "Why", the importance of study, (n = 30, 57%), and the "How", methods, (n = 27, 51%). Six (11%) of these resources indicated that LSs should include the degree of PPPs involvement in the research.

Processes to write a LS

Ten resources (13%) proposed steps for processes to write a LS. The range of suggested steps in the processes was between 4 and 6. Our summary of the processes yielded six steps: pre-work, preparing audience, writing, reviewing finalizing, and knowledge dissemination. Each step included a range of sub-components (Table  8 ).

Twelve participants (eight PPPs, four researchers) responded to the recruitment efforts, and all met the inclusion criteria. Session one was attended by seven PPPs and four researchers, session two by seven PPPs and four researchers, and session three by six PPPs and three researchers. Nine out of 12 participants made it to all sessions. Not all participants were able to attend due to scheduling conflicts.

Session 1: LS characteristics

Our participant group categorized 16 characteristics as the most important, 10 as moderately important, and 12 as less important. Table 9 summarizes detailed information on how participants categorized the 38 LS characteristics compared to the literature in the scoping review. Participants agreed with literature regarding the importance of “avoiding jargon,” “using long and complex sentences,” “defining terms,” “using visuals,” “making LSs available after study,” and “being factual and objective.”

However, some characteristics that were considered less important in the literature were deemed important by our participants including “link to the original study paper”, “big picture first”, “mentioning funders”, “having glossary”, “LS in a local language”, “culturally valid LS”, “labeling visuals”, “person not a disability”, “positive wording”’, “spell out abbreviations”, “avoiding complex image” and “inclusive language”. Participants also expressed a different perspective on the use of reading tests. The literature suggested the use of these tests 30% of the time yet our consultation exercise participants rated them in the lowest category (less important). The group indicated that reading tests are an inadequate way of measuring readability and understanding. Instead, they suggested that it is more critical to ensure that the LS can be understood by the intended audience. Therefore, having someone from the target audience review the LS for comprehension would be a better approach than using readability tests.

Despite being able to reach consensus on the categorization by importance, participants expressed that these categories were overly simplistic and often indicated caveats to the categorization (represented as “d” for “it depends” in Table  9 ). For example, the characteristic “person, not disability" may not always apply to communities where identity takes precedence. The group indicated that while being “non-promotional” is important, there may be times when a message for the public good should be emphasized. The characteristics related to font or printing quality were less important if the LS is accessed online. Even the highly rated (by both the scoping review and the consultation exercise) "avoid jargon" was deemed too restrictive because participants indicated that jargon is unavoidable, and that learning jargon can actually help in self-advocacy efforts. The characteristic "avoid complex images" was also considered too simplistic and could be better phrased as "be cautious with images and add alternative text when including them."

Sessions 2 and 3: LS writing processes

Participants emphasized the LS writing process more important than the list of characteristics. One of the most important issues discussed was the need for all studies to include a LS. As well, to create an environment that validates and legitimizes the role of PPPs and to offer them the opportunity to be in a desired role in writing a LS. They expressed that a power balance is needed between researchers and PPPs to achieve a successful outcome and their token participation was unacceptable.

The participants agreed with the literature's findings on the pre-work required before writing a LS, particularly for understanding the target audience. However, they emphasized that PPPs should be involved in every step of the LS writing processes, such as being included in the dissemination of a LS and that researchers should never write a LS alone. Further, they believed that in-house reviewing of the LS would never be sufficient and that having reviewers naïve to the project was critical. Additionally, they suggested that a characteristic checklist would generally be unhelpful. Instead, they proposed a list of guiding questions for a LS, such as "What did you do? What did you find? Why does it matter?".

In the third session, participants reached consensus on a revised set of steps for writing a LS. The original six steps outlined in the literature (pre-work, audience preparation, writing, reviewing, finalizing, disseminating) were modified into six different steps (two steps were combined and one step was added): Preparing (includes pre-work and preparing audience), Writing, Reviewing, Finalizing, Disseminating and Evaluating. The last step of evaluation was added and applies to both the LS and its writing processes. Table 10 shows a comprehensive summary of the six recommended steps for writing a LS and their corresponding principles.

The objectives of this scoping review with a consultation exercise were to delineate the features of the available LS resources, summarize the recommended LS characteristics and content, synthesize the recommended LS writing processes, and gather PPPs and researchers' perspectives on the review findings. To our knowledge, this review was the first to synthesize LS characteristics and writing processes. The project was also novel as it was initiated by a PPP and co-led by a PPP and a researcher. Using an iKT approach facilitated the involvement of our PPPs across all steps of the project (table GRIPP 2) [ 30 ]. Employing the consultation exercise to contextualize the review findings furthered the inclusion of diverse perspectives of knowledge users and facilitated our co-creation by actively engaging PPPs and research participants in rank ordering important LS characteristics and elaborating LS wring processes [ 13 ].

Our review showed that the majority of resources focused on LS characteristics as opposed to the writing process, and more than half of the resources were published in the last two years. The most frequently suggested LS content was to include study findings. Very few resources were targeted at PPPs or included PPPs in their development. The prioritization of LS characteristics by consultation exercise participants differed from that of the literature in terms of their importance, with many participants finding certain characteristics over simplistic. The consultation exercise participants emphasized that a one-size-fits-all checklist of characteristics may not be helpful, as LS characteristics often depend on contextual factors and the needs of the target audience. Although few studies specified LS writing processes, our consultation exercise resulted in the proposal of a six-step process for writing a LS.

LS features

The higher rate of producing LS resources between 2020 and 2022 in North America and Europe might indicate a growing interest in the topic [ 15 ]. Further, the higher percentage of resources found in grey literature as compared to peer-reviewed articles underscores the valuable insights that might be more accessible to PPPs [ 31 ], which is important because PPPs need access to LS guidance to engage in LS creation [ 14 ]. Conversely, while focusing on creating more peer-reviewed studies may potentially slow down evidence creation, the scientific rigor and scrutiny involved in peer-reviewed evidence ensures a higher level of credibility and validity [ 32 , 33 ]. The lack of peer-reviewed literature could also reflect researchers’ challenges in focusing on LSs as they are trained and accustomed to writing for subject specialists or academics, rather than the public or non-specialist audience [ 34 ].

Illustrating the importance of stakeholder perspectives, our consultation exercise participants indicated that having resources that elaborate the LS writing process was more valuable than a list of recommended LS characteristics, contrasting with the review results, which indicated the opposite in terms of available resources (i.e., recommendations on LS characteristics was 99% and writing processes was 13%). The literature’s lack of emphasis on the writing process could potentially hinder the overall quality and impact of LS production, particularly if researchers only access peer-reviewed resources for LS guidance.

Our study was able to describe the extent of PPPs’ involvement in LS guidance (18% of the available resources were produced in part with PPPs and 5% were specifically intended for PPPs). Previous reviews on LSs did not report PPP involvement [ 15 , 17 ] making comparisons to other literature difficult, however, our team PPPs indicated this was a common omission. Considering the significant emphasis our consultation exercise participants placed on PPP involvement, this area requires further attention, particularly related to PPP roles in creating LS resources and their participation in the writing processes. Understanding the potential benefits, challenges, and strategies associated with PPPs collaboration in developing LS guidance and crafting a LS is imperative to develop more effective and impactful partnerships that facilitate PPPs’ engagement, while promoting equitable access to LS resources [ 2 , 14 ].

Recommended LS characteristics

Our findings revealed that only two characteristics were recommended by more than 50% of included resources (i.e., “avoid jargon” and “avoid complex sentences”), implying limited consensus on other optimal LS characteristics. Results on these two characteristics and findings on “content” (i.e., using what, where, who, when, or how questions), and “word count range” (i.e., a wide varied range of words from 150 to 1000) were congruent with previous review studies on LS resources [ 15 , 17 , 35 ].

By utilizing the EU-CTR to extract data on LS characteristics, we were able to create some structure around the many LS characteristics that exist and took the opportunity to expand the list of potential (and possibly important) characteristics. Further efforts to build on the EU-CTR framework could lead to an even more robust approach to identifying and structuring characteristics.

Contrary to the literature findings, in our study, consultation exercise participants expressed reservations regarding the sole reliance on reading level and readability tools as a comprehensive strategy to ensure the appropriateness of a LS for diverse audiences. By directly engaging the intended audience in reviewing LS materials, communicators can gain valuable insights into the clarity, comprehensibility, and relevance of the content. This approach acknowledges the inherent variability in audience backgrounds, prior knowledge, and language abilities, and allows for tailored adjustments to optimize LS comprehension and foster PPP engagement [ 2 , 14 ].

The contributions of the consultation exercise participants in contextualizing our review findings were instrumental to our review and shaped much of what was found. One notable suggestion from the consultation exercise participants was to include a LS for all studies. Making a LS an essential component of all studies aligns with the growing recognition of the importance of health evidence communication with public audiences which encourages researchers to actively consider the needs of various audiences throughout the research process and to effectively communicate their findings in a manner that is accessible and comprehensible to a wider range of individuals [ 13 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ].

Consultation exercise participants insights led to a more comprehensive framework for LS writing processes including the integration of “pre-work" and "preparing audience" steps within the LS writing process. This recognizes the importance of upfront planning, assembling the LS writing team, and understanding the target audience before embarking on writing. Furthermore, the consultation exercise participants emphasized the inclusion of an "evaluation" step within the LS writing process. This addition acknowledges the significance of assessing the LS as an output, evaluating its creation processes and the functions it serves. This evaluation allows for necessary adjustments, contributing to the enhancement of future LSs. Previous reviews have not focused on LS processes [ 15 , 17 ] and only 13% of our included sources contained recommendations on the process of writing a LS with focusing on different areas. For instance, Dormer et al. [ 39 ] suggested process steps such as preparation, writing and reviewing, and dissemination. They suggested researchers should be the main writer of a LS with PPPs as reviewers [ 39 ]. Maurer et al.’s [ 40 ] main focus was on writing and dissemination steps rather than any preparation and evaluation. Our consultation exercise participants indicated that writing processes may be one of the most important aspects and their inclusion of an evaluation step to the process is insightful. Additional efforts to advance our understanding of optimal processes and evaluation of processes to write a LS is critical.

The consultation exercise participants stressed the need for a collaborative approach, where researchers and PPPs work together as equal partners in the LS writing process. This collaborative mindset fosters an environment of mutual respect, shared decision-making, and open dialogue [ 13 , 36 ]. They highlighted the significance of recognizing and addressing the common power imbalances that may exist within team dynamics [ 41 , 42 ] to ensure that all team members have an equal voice and are actively involved in shaping the content and direction of the LS creation.

Limitations and future directions

Despite implementing a comprehensive search strategy, adhering to the PRESS search strategy criteria [ 25 ], and adopting the NIHR definition for “lay summary,” the lack of consensus regarding the terminology used to denote a "lay summary” may have resulted in missed resources, particularly for the grey literature. Using the EU-CTR framework for LS characteristics helped structure our extraction and while we did add additional variables deemed important during extraction, there could still be other important characteristics of LSs that were not included. The contribution of consultation exercise participants enhanced the relevance and applicability of the study's findings and conclusions by contextualizing the identified characteristics and writing processes with the needs and expectations of PPPs, however, it was only with a small group of participants. A larger group or a different group may have come to different conclusions. In order to focus on LSs more broadly, we did not extract information from the sources that were specific to condition or context. It is possible that this more specific information could enhance what is known about LS characteristics, and while we can assume that our broad results apply to specific contexts and conditions, we are not certain of the degree of this application. The science of lay summaries appears to be in its infancy. Future work in multiple areas is essential to shed light on how best to engage PPPs and any knowledge user or lay person in the creation and evaluation of LSs, best practices for LS characteristics and for the process of writing a LS would be useful steps towards ensuring that anyone can access scientific evidence.

This scoping review with a consultation exercise provided invaluable information on available resources regarding LS characteristics and writing processes. This study recognizes the imperative of involving PPPs in the process of writing a LS to advance the effective communication of healthcare evidence. Additionally, one output of this study (i.e., key principles to engage PPPs in the LS writing processes) is a contribution to enhancing the principles of LS writing.

Availability of data and materials

All data are provided in tables and supplemental files.

Abbreviations

Lay summaries

Patient and Public Partners

• Patient partners

European Clinical Trial Regulation

Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research-Evidence Alliance

Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research - Patient Engagement Framework. Accessed May 2023 from https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48413.html

Gudi SK, Tiwari KK, Panjwani K. Plain-language summaries: an essential component to promote knowledge translation. Int J Clin Pract. 2021;75:e14140.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Arnstein L, Wadsworth AC, Yamamoto BA. Patient involvement in preparing health research peer-reviewed publications or results summaries: a systematic review and evidence-based recommendations. Res Involv Engag. 2020;6(34):1–14.

Google Scholar  

Pratte MM, Audette-Chapdelaine S, Auger AM, et al. Researchers’ experiences with patient engagement in health research: a scoping review and thematic synthesis. Res Involv Engagem. 2023;9(22):1–23.

The National Institute for Health Reserach, Glossary, Lay Summary. Accessed May 2023 from https://www.nihr.ac.uk/glossary?letter=L&postcategory=-1

Canadian Frailty Network, Guidelines for Writing a Lay Summary. 2017. Accessed January 2022 from https://www.cfn-nce.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/cfn-guidelines-for-lay-summaries.pdf

Taylor and Francis Publisher Groups, Plain Language Summaries, 2021. Accessed January 2022 from https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/TF-PLS-Guidelines-for-Authors-08-Mar-21.pdf

Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, Guide To Writing A Lay Summary. 2013. Acceseed January 2022 from https://mssociety.ca/uploads/files/guide-to-writing-lay-summary-eng-final20130726.pdf

How to Write A Lay Summary for Your Research. Accessed Febuary 2023 from https://www.wiley.com/en-us/network/publishing/research-publishing/preparing-your-article/how-to-write-a-lay-summary-for-your-research#:~:text=A%20lay%20summary%20presents%20a,understand%20why%20your%20work%20matters ().

Standards for the reporting of plain language summaries in new Cochrane Interventions Reviews 2013. Accessed May 2022 from https://consumers.cochrane.org/sites/consumers.cochrane.org/files/uploads/pleacs_2019.pdf

Summaries of Clinical Trial Results for Laypersons Recommendations of the expert group on clinical trials for the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use. Accessed May 2023 from https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2020-02/2017_01_26_summaries_of_ct_results_for_laypersons_0.pdf

McVey L, Frost T, Lssa B, et al. Working together: refections on how to make public involvement in research work. Res Involv Engag. 2023;9(14):1–14.

Pollock D, Lyndsay A, Zachary M, Micah DJP, Khalil H, et al. Moving from consultation to co-creation with knowledge users in scoping reviews: guidance from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4):969–79.

Wada M, Sixsmith J, Harwood G, et al. A protocol for co-creating research project lay summaries with stakeholders: guideline development for Canada’s AGE-WELL network. Res Involv Engag. 2020;6(22):1–8.

Stoll KM, Lieb K, et al. Plain language summaries: a systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research. PLoS ONE. 2022;17:1–28.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ellis U, Kitchin V, Vis-Dunbar M. Identification and reporting of patient and public partner authorship on knowledge syntheses: rapid review. J Participat Med. 2021;13(2):e27141.

Gainey KM, Smith J, McCaffery KJ, et al. What author instructions do health journals provide for writing plain language summaries? A scoping review. Patient Patient Center Outcomes Res. 2023;16:31–42.

Peters MD, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synt. 2021;19(1):3–10.

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.

Zarshenas S, Mosel J, Chui A, et al. Supporting patient and public partners in writing lay summaries of scientific evidence in healthcare: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2022;12(e062981):1–6.

The SPOR Evidence Alliance. Accessed June 2023 from https://sporevidencealliance.ca/

Tricco A, Zarin W, Clement F, et al. Introducing the strategy for patient oriented research (SPOR) evidence alliance: a partnership between researchers, patients and health system decision-makers to support rapid-learning and responsive health systems in Canada and beyond. FACETS. 2022;7:639–53.

Banner D, Bains M, Carroll S, et al. Patient and public engagement in integrated knowledge translation research: are we there yet? Res Involv Engag. 2019;5(8):1–14.

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, et al. GRIPP-2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358(J3453):1–22.

McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DW, et al. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline explanation and elaboration (PRESS E&E), https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/CP0015_PRESS_Update_Report_2016.pdf .

CADTH’s free online resource for grey literature searching. Grey Matters: a practical tool for searching health-related grey literature. Ottawa.CADTH; 2018. Acccssesed May 2023 from https://www.cadth.ca/grey-matters-practical-tool-searching-health-related-grey-literature

Develop your Grey Literature Search Strategy. Accessed May 2023 from https://guides.library.utoronto.ca/c.php?g=577919&p=4123572

Better systematic review management. Accessed May 2023 from https://www.covidence.org/

McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38:655–62.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Guide to Knowledge Translation Planning at CIHR: Integrated and End-of-Grant Approaches. Accessed January 2022 from https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45321.html

Paez A. Grey literature: an important resource in systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med. 2017;10:233.

Kelly J, Sadeghieh T. Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC. 2014;25(3):227–43.

Björk B, Solomon D. The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals. J Informet. 2013;7(4):914–23.

Salita JT. Writing for lay audiences: a challenge for scientists. Eur Med Writ Assoc. 2015;24(4):183–9.

Haughton M, Machin D. The prevalence and characteristics of lay summaries of published journal articles. Eur Meet ISMPP Curr Med Res Opin. 2017;33(Suppl 1):S23-30.

Burke NN, Stewart D, Tierney T, et al. Sharing space at the research table: exploring public and patient involvement in a methodology priority setting partnership. Res Involv Engag. 2023;9:29.

Garritty C, Tricco AC, Smith M, et al. Rapid reviews methods series: involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users. BMJ Evid Based Med 2023.

Gray-Burrows KA, Willis TA, Foy R, et al. Role of patient and public involvement in implementation research: a consensus study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27:858–64.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dormer L, Schindler T, Williams LA, Lobban D, Khawaja S, Hunn A, Ubilla DL, Sargeant I, Hamoir AM. 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. Res Involv Engag. 2022;8(1):23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-022-00358-6 .

Maurer M, Siegel JE, Firminger KB, Lowers J, Dutta T, Chang JS. Lessons learned from developing plain language summaries of research studies. Health Lit Res Pract. 2021;5(2):e155–61. https://doi.org/10.3928/24748307-20210524-01 .

Al H, Davis T, et al. Addressing power dynamics in community-engaged research partnerships. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020;4:24.

Green GTJ. Exploring the relationship (and power dynamic) between researchers and public partners working together in applied health research teams. Front Sociol Sec Med Sociol. 2019;4(3):1–10.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We recognize the collaboration of our patient and public partners who have engaged in all processes of conducting this study (JM, SM, TK, SL). Also, we gratefully acknowledge the invaluable contribution of CE participants.

This project was supported by the Operating Grant: SPOR – Guidelines and Systematic Reviews: The Evidence Alliance, grant number (154442).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Sareh Zarshenas, Samantha Seaton, Hardeep Singh, Sherrie Logan & Heather Colquhoun

Patient Partner, The Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR)-Evidence Alliance, Toronto, ON, Canada

JoAnne Mosel, Sandra Moroz & Tayaba Khan

Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada

Samantha Seaton, Hardeep Singh & Heather Colquhoun

KITE Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada

Hardeep Singh

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

This project was initiated by a query submitted to the evidence alliance team by a co-lead patient partner, JM. This study was co-led by JM, the patient partner and HC, the principal investigator of this project. SZ, SL and HC led the screening of articles, data extraction, and the analysis and interpretation of data. All researchers and PPPs were involved in designing CE sessions and analyzing the CE data. SZ and HC led the development of the manuscript. Researchers including HC, HS, AC and SS and all patient partners including JM, SM, TK, SL were involved in the review and refinement of the manuscript. JM, SM, SL, and TK prepared the Lay summary. All authors read and approved the final manuscript and lay summary.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather Colquhoun .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The consultation exercise was approved by the research ethics board of the University of Toronto. REB approval number: 43453. Participants submitted a signed written consent in compliance with the approved Research Ethics Board (REB) requirements prior to engaging in the consultation exercise.

Consent for publication

No individual information included within manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: table s1..

Data bases search strategy.

Additional file 2: Fig. S2.

Roadmap of conducting a scoping review with consultation exercise.

Additional file 3: Fig. S3.

Infographic prepared to present processes for writing a LS to CE Participants.

Additional file 4: Table S4.

List of resources included in this scoping review.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zarshenas, S., Mosel, J., Chui, A. et al. Recommended characteristics and processes for writing lay summaries of healthcare evidence: a co-created scoping review and consultation exercise. Res Involv Engagem 9 , 121 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00531-5

Download citation

Received : 22 August 2023

Accepted : 11 December 2023

Published : 20 December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-023-00531-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Lay summary
• Plain language summary
• Healthcare evidence
• Public partners
• Characteristics
• Creation processes

Research Involvement and Engagement

ISSN: 2056-7529

• General enquiries: [email protected]

The Academy of Medical Science

Making medical science work for everyone.

• You are here:

Top tips for writing a lay summary

Writing a summary of your research for a non-expert audience can be tricky. Where should you pitch it? What should you include? Sally Thompson, Communications Officer at AMRC , gives her best tips for effective writing.

Answer the questions what, where, when, why and how

If your summary answers these questions then readers will have all the information they need to do their job, whether it’s making funding decisions, writing about your research on their website or drafting a press release.

Keep it short

Stick to the suggested word count and break up your text with sub headings and bullet points to make it easier to digest. You might also want to use short sentences – try to aim for 10-15 words on average.

Imagine you’re talking to the reader

An easy way to stop yourself getting bogged down in specifics is to imagine you’re speaking to someone, perhaps your grandad or your next door neighbour, about your research. Have a think about how you would describe your project to them and write in a similar style.

Get rid of any jargon

You may know what ‘oxidative phosphorylation’ means but it’s unlikely that the average lay reader will. Try to use everyday language and give simple explanations of scientific terms, for example use ‘nerves’ instead of ‘neurons’ and ‘cell death’ in the place of ‘apoptosis’.

Make it human

Use person centred language such as ‘people with breast cancer’ rather than ‘breast cancer sufferers’.

Put your research in context – how does it fit into the bigger picture?

Make sure you give the reader a bit of background, is your study trying to find out more about a certain condition or is it testing potential new treatments?

Explain the study’s impact – what are you hoping to achieve?

It may be a while before your research can have a positive impact on patients but it’s still important to explain the end goal. If the readers are reviewing grant applications they need to know how your research could make a different to patients, even if it’s a few years down the line.

Don’t shy away from mentioning animals

If your study has involved animals then be honest about it. Make sure to state the type of animal you used and avoid phrases such as ‘animal model’.

Don’t oversimplify your research

There’s a fine line between making your research understandable and oversimplifying it to the point where the reader finds out nothing from your summary. Remember, lay readers are a mixed group and some members will be highly knowledgeable about your area of interest.

Get a colleague and a non scientist to read it

This is really important: your colleague will be able to tell you if the science is correct, whilst a friend or relative without a scientific background can tell you whether it reads well and really explains your research goals. If they still have questions after reading it then you may want to add in more detail.

Want to learn more? Check out real examples of what great lay summaries look like from previous Academy successful grant applicants. You can also find more tips on many aspects of research careers on our  Learning Hub . 

Next events, popular pages, mentoring masterclass - april 2024, clinical academics in training annual conference 2024, mentoring masterclass - june 2024, starter grants for clinical lecturers, ordinary fellows.

This site uses session cookies and persistent cookies to improve the content and structure of the site.

By clicking “ Accept All Cookies ”, you agree to the storing of cookies on this device to enhance site navigation and content, analyse site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts.

By clicking ' See cookie policy ' you can review and change your cookie preferences and enable the ones you agree to.

By dismissing this banner , you are rejecting all cookies and therefore we will not store any cookies on this device.

Writing a plain language (lay) summary of your research findings

Trusted information from health and social care research studies should be publicly available for the benefit of all. Information about research findings should be available to those who took part in the study, interested groups or communities and the general public in a format that is accessible and easy to understand. This also makes it easier for health professionals, commissioners, policy makers, and funders to access and use the findings to help make informed decisions and so improve the nation’s health.

As part of the HRA’s research transparency strategy we ask research sponsors to include a plain language summary of their findings in their final report . These plain language summaries will then be published on our website alongside the study research summaries .

How do you write a good plain language summary of your research and its findings for a general audience?

Here are some general principles:

• Be accurate, clear and concise
• Do not assume any prior knowledge
• Use words that are appropriate for the reader
• Use short sentences (up to 20 words) and short paragraphs (up to 3 sentences)
• Use neutral language
• Consider using infographics with explanatory text
• Involve patients, patient representatives, or members of the public in the development and/or review of your summary/feedback plans
• Involving professionals with experience of writing in plain language for the public such as medical writers can also help.

This e-learning module explains how to write a plain language summary of your research findings. It sets out key points to consider and the information that should be provided using existing guidance on this topic.

What should you include in your lay summary of the research findings?

You should consider including the following information (N.B. not all of the suggested content will be applicable to your research and there may be other information you wish to include):

Thank you to study participants

General information about the research such as:

• Study title
• Who carried out the research? (including details of sponsor, funding and any competing interests)
• What public involvement there was in the study (how many people, what their relevant lived experience was, and what they did)
• Where and when the study took place
• Why was the research needed?
• What were the main questions studied?

Who participated in the study? What treatments or interventions did the participants take/receive? What medical problems (adverse reactions) did the participants have? What happened during the study? What were the results of the study? How has this study helped patients and researchers? Details of any further research planned Where can I learn more about this study?

Further information and resources:

General guidance:

• National Institute for Health Research (NIHR): Plain English Summaries Guidance
• Digital Curation Centre (DCC): How to Write a Lay Summary
• HRA Public Involvement Guidance

Clinical trials:

• Summaries of Clinical Trial Results for Laypersons - Recommendations of the expert group on clinical trials for the implementation of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use (2018). [N.B. The HRA led on the development of these guidelines through an EU-wide taskforce. Whilst this guidance is intended to support the EU Clinical Trials Regulation it can be applied to writing lay summaries for all types of research that have taken place in the UK.]
• The Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard (MRCT Center): Practical guidance and toolkit for the dissemination of non-technical summaries to research participants. Visit the Return of Aggregate Results to Participants guidance document and Return of Aggregate Results to Participants toolkit.
• Envision Pharma: Plain language Summaries Toolkit
• TransCelerate: Recommendations for drafting non-promotional lay summaries of clinical trial results
• European Commission Clinical Trials Expert Group (CTEG): Good Lay Summary Practice
• Privacy notice
• Terms & conditions
• Accessibility statement
• Feedback or concerns

Communicating Your Research: How to Write a Lay Summary

Learn five tips on how to write a research summary for a non-scientist audience.

Although researchers are increasingly embracing the idea of communicating their work to the public, many do not have adequate opportunities to receive training in science communications.

In my career I’ve worked at the Society for Neuroscience, the Society for Women’s Health Research and now at the PhRMA Foundation helping researchers broadly communicate about their work and how to maximize their impact beyond the bench. I recently trained the PhRMA Foundation’s  2022 fellowship and grant recipients  on how to write a lay summary, a research description that uses clear, plain language for a public audience.

Here are five tips on how to write a lay summary:

1. Know Your Audience

The key to any successful communication – regardless of format – is to know who you are talking to and what they care about. You should tailor your messages and your language based on your audience. For instance, when you are writing a manuscript for a scientific journal, you’re going to talk about research differently than when you are telling a family member about your work. For a lay summary, the audience could include patients and caregivers, policymakers, media, and researchers not in your field.

2. Explain Why They Should Care

A compelling lay summary should explain the problem the research is trying to solve and why the average person should care about the solution. When communicating to the public, it’s critical to make a human connection. One way to do this is by linking the research back to the patient. Tell your audience the “so what?” — what are the implications of this research for patients, for policymaking, and for society broadly?

3. Keep It Short and Engaging

Don’t get too in the weeds when describing your research methods. Keep your summary high level. You should also write as you would speak, using active voice. Think of your lay summary like a TED talk about your research. Keep your language punchy, clear, and colorful. Tip: I recommend avoiding semicolons. Often when people use semicolons, it means they are writing in unnecessarily long sentences.

4. Avoid Jargon

Often there are technical terms that are essential to describing research. However, when writing for a public audience, you should use technical terms only when absolutely necessary. When you must use such terms, be sure to define them using simple language. In addition, acronyms should be used sparingly and must be spelled out on first reference.

5. Get Feedback

Before you share your lay summary with someone else, read it aloud to yourself. Then, ask a friend or family member who is not in your field to read your lay summary. Ask them whether they understood the purpose of your research and the words you used to describe it. Use their feedback to improve your summary. Note: Your university’s communications, media or press office likely has staff members and resources that can help you with communicating your science to the public.

Communicating your research to the public benefits both you and society. Broadly disseminating your work can help you gain recognition, secure more funding, and find new collaborators, while also building public trust in science and providing valuable knowledge for personal and policy decision-making. Finally, it can be fun and personally gratifying to share your research with others.

Join Our Email List

Sign up to get the latest PhRMA Foundation funding announcements, news, and events in your inbox.

Newsletter Signup

The newsletter signup form usually leveraged for the “Newsletter” block.

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

Lay Summary Guide for Researchers

Tips on writing a lay summary ​.

There are several key elements for developing a lay summary that researchers should consider:

• Structure and content
• Readability
• Language Guide

1. Structure and Content ​

Using plain language, answer these questions as a general guide to form your lay summary:

• What is the research question?
• Describe how the study addresses a relevant evidence gap in the tumour type or more broadly
• How and what types of patients with cancer would be affected by this research?
• Why is the study needed? Highlight the direction of the research and how it may contribute to the broader knowledge base of cancer
• Describe the study methods, tools, setting and the patient population
• Study duration
• What are the expected outcomes and timeframes
• The potential applications of the research
• The relevance and benefits of the research e.g., to the wider population, to the quality of life, health and care of cancer patients current and future
• Contributing to the body of knowledge about cancer
• Funding applications, evidence building, further collaborations, publication etc.

2. Readability ​

• Develop the language in your lay summary as if you are describing the study to someone outside your field
• Define any technical terms used, such as “genome sequencing techniques” or “analytical tools”
• Refrain from using acronyms, but if necessary, spell out in full when first used in the text
• Refrain from using jargon or meaningless terms and phrases
• Choose appropriate verb choices such as simpler “buy” in place of “purchase”
• Provide simple, relevant examples when describing the research
• Have a word count of 250 words maximum. The minimum word count is 100 words
• Utilize an online readability tool such as www.readabilityformulas.com . This free tool has an automatic readability checker that analyzes your text (in a few seconds) and calculates the number of sentences, words, syllables, and characters in your content. Using readability formulas will yield the reading age level and grade level of your text and help you determine the suitability of your text to your audience. The reading grade level to be aimed at for the lay summaries is grade 8 or 9.

3. Language Guide ​

• Talk in an active voice (“I.. we..”) and second person in place of third person
• Use people-first language, ideally by focusing on the person, not the disease or circumstance, for example, use “people with cancer” or “treatments that have failed patients” rather than “patients who failed treatments”
• Try to avoid emotive or negative language such as battle, fight etc.
• Be respectful
• Be realistic in your language around impact and expected outcomes. Please avoid detailing intensively the anticipated impacts and exaggerating benefits.

Lay Summary Before and After Examples ​

Example 1 ​, lay summary ​.

This project comprises a focused effort to understand the evolution of prostate cancer. It will provide a detailed understanding of the molecular heterogeneity of the disease, link that heterogeneity to clinical outcome, and develop improved clinical tools for patients and clinicians. By making all data and tools available, it will create key resources for community use. ICGC controlled-tier data will be used to probe the relationship of inherited genes to prostate cancer evolution and clinical behaviour.

Word count: 76 words Readability: Grade Level 15, College graduate and above

Revised Lay Summary ​

Prostate cancer begins when cells in the prostate gland start to grow out of control. This is caused by changes in the DNA of normal cells. DNA is the chemical in our cells that makes up our genes. Genes control how our cells work. We know that cancer can be caused by DNA mutations or changes. This can then lead to uncontrolled cell growth.

DNA changes can be inherited from a parent or acquired during a person’s lifetime. We want to learn about when and how this happens in different people. By studying gene changes, we can help scientists to better understand how prostate cancer develops. This could help to design treatments that target those changes.

An organization called the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) has gathered data or information about the nature of various cancers. We want to study this data using powerful computers to learn about the growth and spread of prostate cancer. We want to see how certain genes are linked to prostate cancer and how our bodies react when gene changes occur.

We think that prostate cancer tumors are made up of many different types of cells. We want to know how these cells are linked to cancer treatments and outcomes. If we can see how these cell types respond to different treatments, we can find better ways to detect and treat prostate cancer. We can then add our new data to the ICGC database for use by patients and doctors in our communities.

Word count: 250 words Readability: Grade 8

Example 2 ​

Cancer is often linked with acquired abnormalities of the tumor genome, such as mutations, gains and losses of parts, and other aberrant structures. Some tumors are characterized by an increased rate for such abnormalities, a process named genomic instability. Our research project is devoted to unraveling the origins of genomic instabilities in cancers. Our approach consists in the systematic analysis of cancer genome architecture with relation to the genes altered in various types of cancer. By analyzing ICGC controlled data, we aim at deciphering associations and functional links between gene alterations and the genomic instability patterns. Taking into consideration genomic instability could improve tumor molecular classifications, prognosis and prediction of response to treatment.

Word count: 113 words Readability: Grade level 16, College level and above

Revised Lay summary ​

Your genes carry all the information that makes you who you are. For example, they tell your body to have blonde hair or brown eyes. They also tell your cells how to behave, when to grow and when to die. It is usual for cells to repair faults in their genes. When the damage is very bad the cell may self-destruct or the immune system may recognise these cells as abnormal and kill them. This important mechanism helps to protect us from cancer.

Sometimes mutations in genes cause a cell to no longer understand instructions. The cell can then start to multiply out of control. It doesn't repair itself properly, and it doesn't die when it should. This can lead to cancer. Some genes have a tendency to develop mutations at a faster rate than other genes, and this is called genomic instability.

We don’t know why this happens, and the aim of our study is to understand why some genes mutate and change at a faster rate than others.

An organization called the International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) has gathered data about the genomics of various cancers. Using powerful computers we plan to study and analyse the data that has been gathered on these types of fast mutating genes (genomic instability). This study will help us to understand more about the origins and patterns of genomic instability, and this in turn could help us to improve how patients respond to treatments in the future.

Word Count: 246 words Readability: Grade 9

Process to Edit ​

• Fill in the table below with concepts from the original lay summary/abstract.

Example of Content Development using Example 1 - Lay Summary.

Write Draft 1 using answers to each question.

Using https://readabilityformulas.com/free-readability-formula-tests.php , paste a sample of plain text abstract in the box.

Identify all words with 3 or more syllables e.g., Use Show Word Statistics: 3+ syllable words (show all 'hard' words) for substitution.

a) Substitute simple words or phrases found by checking word synonyms, b) Use simple explanations for complex words or phrases and/or c) Read similar concepts on lay websites.

Write a final version by making edits as needed to comply with word count, language and readability guidelines.

• 1. Structure and Content
• 2. Readability
• 3. Language Guide
• Process to Edit

How to write a lay summary

Daniel Stammler

Dr. Elaine T. Kiriakopoulos

About this video

Journal articles are written with researchers in mind, so the content isn’t always easy to follow for people outside academia…or even that field of study! That is where lay summaries, or lay abstracts as they are sometimes called, play a helpful role. They also have another advantage; a lay summary can be a great tool to help you promote your work. 

In this webinar, we look at what a lay summary is and why you, the author, are best placed to explain your novel results. We also offer writing tips covering everything from the ideal structure and length for your lay summary, through to the language you should use. And, we explore what you can do with your finished document, not only to help increase the visibility of your work, but to secure further funding.  

You’ll come away with the skills you need to create a compelling lay summary and an understanding of how it can help you grow your network and career. 

About the presenters

Executive Publisher in Health & Medical Sciences, STM Journal Publishing, Elsevier

Dr. Daniel Staemmler works in Elsevier’s Berlin office. After finishing his Ph.D. researching cognitive styles and interactive online learning environments at the University of Hamburg, Daniel moved to San Francisco, California USA. He worked for Shanti's L.I.F.E. Institute (Learning Immune Function Enhancement) as their Manager of Research and Internet Services. On returning to Germany, Daniel worked for Bertelsmann AG at their educational start-up scoyo, an online learning platform for school children. Followed by positions at the German Institute of Continuing Education for Technologists and Analysts in Medicine (DIW-MTA e.V.) and Quadriga University of Applied Sciences, before joining Elsevier in 2015.

National Director of Health Communications and Engagement, Epilepsy Foundation

Dr. Kiriakopoulos is a graduate of McMaster University Medical School in Hamilton, Canada and completed her Master of Science degree in Anatomy at the University of Western Ontario. She began her post graduate medical training at the University of Toronto, then travelled to Boston where she finished a Research Fellowship in Transcranial Magnetic Brain Stimulation at Harvard University. After some time working as Harvard Medical Faculty Physician, she transitioned to nonprofit sector in 2016 and joined Epilepsy Foundation since then.  

How to create impact with patient and public involvement

How your research can make an impact on society

How to build empathy in research

Standing up for Science

Life after publication: How to promote your work for maximum impact

Get noticed brochure, get noticed fact sheet, lay summaries ppt.

In a nutshell: how to write a lay summary

The importance of ensuring high visibility for your research

Language Editing Services

Impact of science: the need to measure

What Makes a Great Lay Summary? – Top 09 Tips to Write One!

Scholarly publishing forms an integral part of research communication. Hence, after having spent endless hours in research conduction, you must plan on publishing it. There’s an increasing pressure dwelling in every researcher’s mind to break academic barriers and easily communicate their findings to not only academic but also non-academic audience. What makes a researcher’s way to reaching out to the lay man is by writing a lay summary!

You’d wonder why must you write a lay summary? Generally, organizations and taxpayers fund research. These people could be non-scientists. Such people would require to understand the real-world impact of your research, and it’s therefore imperative for you to write a summary in a language that is easily comprehendible to all audiences. On the other hand, it is very important for researchers to not only publish their research work for specific audience but also demonstrate the impact of their research by sharing it widely. In this post, we will discuss how to write excellent lay summaries and the benefits and opportunities they hold.

What is a Lay Summary?

While your peers and journal target audience would probably be cognizant of your research topic and the article you write, its content may probably be incomprehensible to the lay man or woman on the street. In addition, researchers are often asked by their universities and funders (especially) to draft an overview of the impact of their research for the general people who are beyond specific research area.

A lay summary , as its name indicates, is an efficient way of conveying the crux of your research article concisely and clearly. In general, it is a brief paragraph that outlines your manuscript and is aimed to disseminate the impact of your research to wider non-specialists in the field. This intent of a lay summary differentiates it from abstract , which is written for a subject-specific audience. Furthermore, due to its non-technical and concise nature, a lay summary should be around 200-250 words to convey the essence of your research using simple language.

Top 09 Tips on How to Write a Lay Summary 1. Answer the questions—what, where, when, why, and how

Your summary must clearly answer questions related to your research for easy comprehension by all readers.

2. Keep it Succinct

Write in simple English keeping all the relevant information. For a better approach, imagine that you are explaining your research to a distant family member who does not have a scientific background.

3. Avoid Jargon and Minimize Technicalities

Use regular English words and get rid of complex terms which can be replaced with simpler words. For example, use ‘nerves’ instead of ‘neurons’ and ‘cell death’ instead of ‘apoptosis’

4. Use First Person and Active Voice

Use person centered language. For example, use “we agreed” instead of “it was agreed”.

5. Justify Your Research

Explain how your research will help in solving real-world problems. Predict and cover its potential impact on society.

6. Follow a Logical Order

Ensure well organization of the summary. Furthermore, explain every aspect of your research clearly. Do not jump to conjectures. This may confuse the reader.

7. Include Graphics

Incorporating one or two images can make it easier for non-academic readers to comprehend your research in a better way.

8. Don’t Oversimplify

While trying to make it simple, ensure that the crux of your research is not missed out. The reader must clearly understand what the research is about and how it will affect the society.

9. Ask a Peer and a Non-scientist Person to Read it

It is imperative to let your peer read the lay summary to make sure that the science is correct; whereas, a non-academic friend or family member will let you know if it is easy to understand and clearly explains your research goals. If they have questions after reading it then you will have to revamp it.

Why Should You Write a Lay Summary?

As researchers are always swamped with other research and writing related activities for a specific target audience, they find it difficult to commit the time and effort to learn skills and write a summary in a simpler language for a wider audience. Hence, for researchers to devote extra time and effort in learning a new skill, they must believe that public engagement is a possible approach to improve the relevance and impact of their research work.

The benefits of writing a lay summary:

• Lay summaries help you garner wider readership
• Help funding bodies to provide evidence how taxpayers’ contributions are utilized
• It helps funders to clearly and accurately communicate with mainstream media
• Clear dissemination of accurate information provides recognition in academic as well as non-academic fields
• Additionally, lay summaries demonstrate the potential of your research to policymakers resulting in an increase in public spending on research
• More importantly, lay summaries enable grant reviewers to evaluate the potential real-world applications and impact of research on society.

Isn’t drafting a great lay summary easier now? Follow these tips to write a lay summary and improve public understanding of research, increase your research visibility , and garner the attention of potential funders. Let us know what’s your biggest struggle while writing lay summaries in the comments section below.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• AI in Academia
• Trending Now

Simplifying the Literature Review Journey — A comparative analysis of 6 AI summarization tools

Imagine having to skim through and read mountains of research papers and books, only to…

• Expert Interviews

Empowering Scholarly Endeavors: Insights on grants, funding, and diversity in academia

Funding plays an indispensable role in a researcher’s career. In our unwavering commitment to improve…

• Publishing Research
• Reporting Research

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

For researchers across disciplines, the path to uncovering novel findings and insights is often filled…

• Diversity and Inclusion

The Silent Struggle: Confronting gender bias in science funding

In the 1990s, Dr. Katalin Kariko’s pioneering mRNA research seemed destined for obscurity, doomed by…

• Promoting Research

Plain Language Summary — Communicating your research to bridge the academic-lay gap

Science can be complex, but does that mean it should not be accessible to the…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

8 Effective Strategies to Write Argumentative Essays

Language as a Bridge, Not a Barrier: ESL researchers’ path to successful…

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

What should universities' stance be on AI tools in research and academic writing?