ArticlePloS one2026
"A very first clue on the subject": A focus group study on users' perspectives on German plain language summaries of psychological meta-analyses.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlain Language Summaries (PLSs) are textual summaries of scientific studies that are targeted at lay audiences. PLSs of psychological meta-analyses may benefit laypeople interested in psychological research, psychological practitioners and science communicators. This study explored the perspective of these three user groups on German PLSs of psychological meta-analyses. We wanted to understand the aims and benefits of reading psychological PLSs form their perspective, and how these PLSs should be designed to be useful to them.
methodsWe conducted four focus group interviews in total. Two focus groups comprised 15 laypeople in sum, one focus group interview comprised six practitioners, and one focus group comprised five science communicators. Interview transcripts were analyzed using content analysis according to Kuckartz and Rädiker. We used main categories for PLS aims and characteristics from a previously developed framework model to classify the content.
resultsAll user groups appreciated the PLSs as a first insight into a broader subject. Additionally, laypeople primarily intended to use the PLSs to gain knowledge, comprehend psychological research and make informed decisions. Science communicators considered the PLSs mainly as a starting point for in-depth investigation of certain topics, while psychological practitioners regarded them rather as good educational material for clients or patients. Participants across all groups valued plain language, clear structure and short length of PLSs as well as reporting of conflicts of interest related to the presented research. Suggestions for improving the design included a general explanation of technical terms in the form of a glossary, as well as presenting the key message at the beginning.
conclusionsThe PLSs of psychological meta-analyses investigated in this study have the potential to improve the accessibility of psychological scientific knowledge and provide an attractive first insight into a more extensive subject. The user groups' thoughts and ideas for improvement were implemented in the further development of the PLSs that are published by the Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID).
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.