Top tips when reviewing Plain English Summaries

For most of GOSH BRC funding calls, applicants are asked to submit a plain English summary of their research project. GOSH BRC uses this summary to publicise the research it funds to a general audience, and to effectively engage the general public in the outputs of the BRC.

Therefore, we are interested to hear how Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) representatives think how easy it would be for patients and the public to understand the plain English summary of research projects. We also support researchers to not only improve the plain English summaries for their projects but to use them as a foundation to build and adapt as their research develops.  

A plain English summary of a research proposal or science article is sometimes referred to as a ‘lay summary’ as it is aimed at an audience that is not expert in the ideas, methodologies or technical content described in the research proposal. These summaries should provide a concise and informative way to share research proposals or findings with a wider, non-specialist audience. The plain English summary is not the same as a scientific abstract.

The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) states that a plain English Summary is:

A clear, easy to read summary that is as jargon free as possible. It provides an overview of the whole of your research study that readers can understand the first time they read it.

“If the plain English summary is well written, somehow the whole application seems easier to assess – I have an idea of what it is about.”  Public reviewer

Plain English is a style of writing that the intended audience can understand on first reading. Well-written, plain English should engage and inform an audience. It is about clarity of language which avoids using jargon, technical terms, acronyms (abbreviations) and any other text that is not easy to understand. If technical terms are needed, they should be properly explained. When writing in plain English, the writer should not change the meaning of what they want to say, but they may need to change the way they say it.

• What is the researcher aiming to find out?
• How will patients /carers /members of the public and services benefit from the research – either directly or in the longer term?

• Why does this research need to be done now?
• What is the scale of the issue? For example:
• How many patients / members of the public are affected?
• What are the costs to services?

• What design and methods has the researcher chosen and why?
• Who are their participants? (If appropriate)

How have patients / the public been involved in developing this research to date or what plans are there to involve them?

• How will patients / the public be involved in the conduct / management of the research?

• Who will the findings be communicated to and how?

• Is it written in an understandable way, and could it be easily read and understood as a stand-alone piece by the intended audience?
• Does the context define who, what, why, when, where and how of the research?
• Does it use active not passive phrases, for example does it say ‘we will do it’ rather than ‘it will be done by us’?
• Does it describe the research accurately?
• Does it reflect the merits and caveats (specific conditions or limitations) of the research in an honest and objective way?
• Is it balanced?
• Is it interesting?
• Does it aim to engage the reader whenever possible?
• Does it avoid jargon?
• Does it focus on the main concepts that are relevant to the lay audience?
• Does it consider different ways to describe the science without the need for a complete summary of terms and definitions?
• When using scientific terms, does it define them and any other technical concepts used, avoiding further terminology when doing so?