PROTOCOL: Comparative Effectiveness of Tools for Communicating Health Research Results to Study Participants and Others With Relevant Lived Experience: A Living Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Abstract

<b>Introduction:</b> Research results are often not effectively communicated to study participants or others with relevant lived experience. Effective communication of research results would help study participants understand their contribution to research and could improve trust in research and likelihood of research participation. We aim to conduct a living (i.e., regularly updated) systematic review to assess the comparative effectiveness of communication tools for disseminating research results to study participants or others with relevant lived experience. Our primary objectives are to evaluate (1) overall satisfaction with the communication of study results, defined as how well the tool met participants' expectations and needs; (2) understanding of the study results, assessed through self-reported (e.g., perceived understanding) or objective measures (e.g., multiple-choice questions about study findings); and (3) ease of use, including clarity of language and navigability of the tool. Secondary objectives, including subgroup analyses will also be undertaken. <b>Methods:</b> Eligible studies will be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare 2 or more communication tools for disseminating research results to people who participate in health research studies or others with relevant lived experience. Eligible tools will include, but will not be limited to, plain-language or lay summaries, infographics, visual abstracts, news articles or newsletters, comics, podcasts, study-specific websites, brochures, summary sheets, videos, leaflets, cartoons, and reports. Eligible comparators will include tools not specifically designed for study participants or others with relevant lived experience (e.g., scientific article, abstract) or another eligible tool. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central. Automated searches will be set for monthly updates. Two independent reviewers screen, extract, and assess risk in identified studies. Meta-analyses will be considered if &#x2265; 2 eligible RCTs assess the effectiveness of similar tools and report comparable outcomes in similar populations. <b>Discussion:</b> Findings will inform decisions on how to most effectively share research results with study participants and others with relevant lived experience. <b>Registration:</b> PROSPERO (CRD42024463844).