Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35379331›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2022

Bursting out of our bubble: using creative techniques to communicate within the systematic review process and beyond.

Jo Thompson Coon, Noreen Orr, Liz Shaw, Harriet Hunt, Ruth Garside, Michael Nunns, Alke Gröppel-Wegener, Becky Whear

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jo Thompson CoonNIHR Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula (PenARC), University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK. j.thompson-coon@exeter.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5161-0234
Noreen OrrUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
Liz ShawUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
Harriet HuntUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
Ruth GarsideUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
Michael NunnsUniversity of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
Alke Gröppel-WegenerUniversity of Staffordshire, Stoke-on-Trent, UK.
Becky WhearNIHR Applied Research Collaboration South West Peninsula (PenARC), University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
University of Exeter · GBUniversity of Staffordshire · GB

Funding

Department of Health 14/157/06Department of Health 16/47/22Department of Health 17/20/02Department of Health NiHR ARC South West PeninsulaDepartment of Health PB-PG-0416-20032
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing pressure to publicise research findings and generate impact, alongside an expectation from funding bodies to go beyond publication within academic journals, has generated interest in alternative methods of science communication. Our aim is to describe our experience of using a variety of creative communication tools, reflect on their use in different situations, enhance learning and generate discussion within the systematic review community.

methodsOver the last 5 years, we have explored several creative communication tools within the systematic review process and beyond to extend dissemination beyond traditional academic mechanisms. Central to our approach is the co-production of a communication plan with potential evidence users which facilitates (i) the identification of key messages for different audiences, (ii) discussion of appropriate tools to communicate key messages and (iii) exploration of avenues to share them. We aim to involve evidence users in the production of a variety of outputs for each research project cognisant of the many ways in which individuals engage with information.

resultsOur experience has allowed us to develop an understanding of the benefits and challenges of a wide range of creative communication tools. For example, board games can be a fun way of learning, may flatten power hierarchies between researchers and research users and enable sharing of large amounts of complex information in a thought provoking way, but they are time and resource intensive both to produce and to engage with. Conversely, social media shareable content can be quick and easy to produce and to engage with but limited in the depth and complexity of shareable information. DISCUSSION: It is widely recognised that most stakeholders do not have time to invest in reading large, complex documents; creative communication tools can be a used to improve accessibility of key messages. Furthermore, our experience has highlighted a range of additional benefits of embedding these techniques within our project processes e.g. opening up two-way conversations with end-users of research to discuss the implications of findings.

Indexed as

Social MediaSystematic Reviews as TopicCommunicationHumansResearch DesignCommunicationDisseminationScience communication

Identifiers

PMID35379331
PMCPMC8977563
OpenAlexW4226105378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.