ArticleBMJ open2026
Establishing patient perceptions and preferences for a journal transparency tool to support health literacy: a mixed-methods online survey and focus group study of Canada-based patients.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A mixed-methods survey and focus group study to understand researcher and clinician preferences for a Journal transparency Tool.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Publisher preferences for a journal transparency tool: A modified three-round Delphi study.F1000Research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine how patients use the internet to get health information and to identify their needs and preferences for a journal transparency tool which would highlight journal transparency practices.
designA mixed-methods study comprising a cross-sectional online survey followed by virtual focus groups to further explore the survey responses.
settingCanada.
participantsA total of 183 adult patients and caregivers completed our online survey. 29 survey respondents participated in the subsequent focus groups. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We report descriptive statistics (counts and percentages) for all quantitative survey items. We used thematic content analysis for text-based survey responses. The focus groups asked patients about four key topics: (1) the content they would like to see in a journal transparency tool, (2) how they would like the content visually displayed, (3) how to best share the tool with patients and (4) how to determine whether the tool was successful over time. We conducted a thematic content analysis to identify core themes discussed. Focus group participants then rank-ordered the themes identified by their perceived importance.
resultsOf the 183 survey respondents, 146 (82%) indicated they use the internet most often when looking for health information, 66 (37%) indicated they sometimes read original research articles when searching for health information and 92 (52%) indicated they sometimes have difficulty knowing if the information they read online is reliable. Approximately half (86; 49%) of the survey respondents had never heard of predatory journals. We identified 32 themes across the four key topic areas that were discussed in the focus groups.
conclusionsPatients have expressed a need for a journal transparency tool. This study will inform the tool's development to ensure that it meets the needs and preferences of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.