No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 April 2025
Objectives/Goals: This literature review examines the current landscapes of plain language summaries (PLS), which are used to make research accessible to nonexpert audiences. It aims to identify gaps in their implementation by focusing on challenges related to consistency, accessibility, and quality across fields. Methods/Study Population: A systematic search was conducted using databases such as PubMed and Google Scholar, employing key search terms like “plain language summaries,” “scientific communication,” “health literacy,” “patient education,” “knowledge translation,” “accessibility in research,” “public engagement,” “lay-person,” and “lay summaries.” Literature from multiple sources (pharmaceutical companies/industry, nonprofit organizations, private–public partnerships, and government) was compared to assess the gaps in current PLS best practices. Results/Anticipated Results: Search results yielded 95 articles. Of those, 37 articles fit the criteria, highlighting critical gaps in PLS implementation for clinical research. Preliminary findings suggest a lack of standards and guidelines, as well as a need for more research on the effectiveness of PLS for improving knowledge transfer and patient engagement. Key limitations were identified for investigator-initiated trials (IITs). A best practice table, comparing recommendations from each group of sources, was developed with suggestions for writing effective PLS. While there is consensus on some principles (i.e., importance of simplicity), differences emerge regarding optimal length and the use of layperson glossaries and graphics. The table aims to serve as a guide for creating effective and standardized PLS across fields. Discussion/Significance of Impact: There are limited PLS best practice resources tailored for IITs. These findings could lead to more practical tools and a streamlined approach to enhance communication strategies for lay audiences. This would benefit trial participants and community members who rely on this information and bridge the gap between scientific communities and the public.