Plain Language Summaries in Medical Journals – How Accessible Is Scientific Research to the General Public?

OBJECTIVES: In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on enhancing accessibility and understanding of scientific research and clinical trial results among patients and lay audiences. This study evaluates the prevalence of plain language summary (PLS) in peer-reviewed journals across five therapeutic areas, to assess the extent to which new research is made accessible to those with limited health literacy.

METHODS: We identified the 50 highest ranked journals in the therapeutic areas of neurology (N), psychiatry/mental health (P/MH), respiratory (R), cardiology (C), and infectious disease (ID) using the 2022 SCImago Journal Rank results. We then reviewed each journal’s guidance for authors and editorial website to collect information related to PLS and inclusive language.

RESULTS: PLSs were mandatory in 19 journals out of 250 reviewed (N: 1/50; P/MH: 6/50; R: 1/50; C: 8/50; ID: 3/50). Additionally, 35 journals allowed PLSs, but did not make them compulsory (N: 15/50; P/MH: 7/50; R: 2/50; C: 8/50; ID: 3/50). Patient involvement in developing or reviewing the PLS was requested or required in 2 journals (N: 0/50; P/MH: 1/50; R: 1/50; C: 0/50; ID: 0/50). Across therapeutic areas, the journals published by Elsevier, Springer Nature and Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd accepted or requested PLS more frequently. The need to use inclusive language was more common than PLS across all therapeutic areas (N: 21/50; P/MH: 16/50; R: 4/50; C: 15/50; ID: 23/50).

CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased integration of the patient voice in clinical trials, few journals currently bring patients and laypeople into publication processes. This aligns with our previously-reported findings for the top dermatology (29/48) and oncology (10/50) journals. Adding PLS to more academic publications may increase health literacy and improve communication between healthcare professionals, researchers, and patients/caregivers.