Nutzer*innenerfahrung mit allgemeinverständlichen Kurzzusammenfassungen psychologischer systematischer Übersichtsarbeiten mit Metaanalyse („KLARpsy“-Texte) – eine qualitative Studie mit der „Lautes Denken“-Methode

Background

Science communication can support informed decision-making. As part of the “PLan Psy” project, a guideline for producing plain language summaries of systematic reviews with meta-analysis on psychological topics (“KLARpsy” texts), was developed. This study aims to investigate the similarities and differences in the user experience with “KLARpsy texts” between laypersons and professionals (science communicators and psychologists).

Methods

We conducted a qualitative online interview study. Participants read two “KLARpsy” texts presented on a mock-up website and verbalized their impressions and experiences using the think aloud method. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed with a deductive approach using content analysis.

Results

The study was completed by twelve participants (nine female, three male), including six laypersons, three science communicators, and three psychologists. Both groups found the “KLARpsy” texts to be mainly useful, user-friendly, and trustworthy. Nevertheless, professional users preferred the original studies. Both groups emphasized the need for more detailed descriptions regarding methodology and result presentation. The “KLARsaurus” glossary promoted comprehensibility. The text structure supported usability. However, the structure and transitions between study-specific and general information as well as sentence structure were sometimes seen as non-intuitive. Some opinions on comprehensibility and information density were not consistent within the two groups.

Discussion

The plain language summaries in the form of ‘KLARpsy’ texts were perceived by interested participants as added value for laypersons. Both laypersons and professionals attach particular importance to a transparent and critical, but also understandable and clear presentation of study results. Individual preferences and differences in the perspectives of both user groups highlight challenges of standardizing such a science communication format.