Lay summaries of open access journal articles: Engaging with the general public on medical research

Learned Publishing

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 173-184

  Nunn, Emily ^a   Pinfield, Stephen ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84928489509     PISSN: 09531513     EISSN: 17414857     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1087/20140303     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Willinsky, J. 2006. The Access Principle: The use for Open Access to Research and Scholarship. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
2. Research Councils UK (RCUK). 2013. RCUK policy on open access and supporting guidance, http://www.rcuk. ac.uk/documents/documents/RCUKOpen Access Policy. pdf (accessed 1 August 2013)
3. Dingwall, R. 2013. Who really, really wants open access? Social Science Space blog, http://www.socialsciencespace. com/2013/06/who-really-really-wants-open-acccss/ (accessed 27 February 2014).
4. Zuccala, A. 2009. The lay person and open access. Annual Review of information Science and Technology, 43(1): 1-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ aris.2009.1440430115
5. Kahlor, L. and Stout, PA. 2009. Communicating Science. London, Routledge.
6. Department of Health. 2001. The Expert Patient: A New Approach to Chronic Disease Management for the Tweruy-jmt Century. London, Department of Health, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/H-/www. dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/ Publications Policyand Guidance/DH_4006801 (accessed 20 May 2013).
7. Davis, PM. and Walters, W.H. 2011. The impact of free access to the scientific literature: a review of recent research. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 99(3): 208-217. http://dx.doi.org/10-3163/1536-5050.99.3.008
8. JISC. 2011. Patients Participate! Bridging the Gap between Information Access and Understanding, http:// blogs.ukoln.ac.uk/patientsparticipate/files/2011/09/ Web Patients Participate Summary Report.pdf (accessed 20 May 2013).
9. Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). 2002. Budapest Open Access Initiative, http://www.budapesto-penaccessinitiative.org/read (accessed 1 August 2013).
10. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2004. Scientific Publications Free tor All: Tenth Report of Session 2003-2004: Volume 1, Report. HC 399-1, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399.pdf (accessed 1 August 2013).
11. Willinsky, J. and Alperin, J.R 2011. The academic ethics of open access to research and scholarship. Ethics and Education, 6(3): 217-223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/174 49642.2011.632716
12. Brashers, E., Haas, M., Klingle, S., and Neidig, L. 2006. Collective AIDS activism and individuals' perceived self-advocacy in physician-patient communication. Human Communication Research, 26(3): 372-402. http:// dx.doi.org/10.111 l/j,1468-2958.2000.th00762.x
13. Field, K (Producer). 2011. Health Information Obesity: The New Epidemic? [video], http://www.sto-ryingsheffield.com/2012/07/knowing-as-healing-project/ (accessed 20 May 2013).
14. Zuccala, A. 2010. Open access and civic scientific literacy. Information Research, 15(1), http://informationr. net/ir/15-l/paper426.html (accessed 20 May 2013).
15. Davis, PM. 2009. How the media frames open access. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 12(1). http://dx.doi. org/10.3998/3 336451.CW12.101
16. Marrie, R.A., Salter, A.R., Tyry, T., Fox, R.J., and Cutter, G.R. 2013. Preferred sources of health information in persons with multiple sclerosis: degree of trust and information sought. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(4): e67. http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2466
17. Weaver, J.B., Mays, D., Lindner, G., Eroglu, D., Fridinger, F., and Bernhardt, J.M. 2009. Profiling characteristics of internet medical information users. Journal of the American Medical Information Association, 16(5): 714-722. http://dx.doi.otg/10.1197/jamia.M3150
18. Tustin, N. 2010. The role of patient satisfaction in online health information seeking. Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives, 15(1): 3-17. http://dx.d0i.0rg/l 0.1080/10810730903465491
19. Lambert, S.D. and Loiselle, C.G. 2007. Health information seeking behaviour. Qualitative Health Research, 17(8): 1006-1019. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/1049732307305199
20. Adams, S.A. 2010. Revisiting the online health information reliability debate in the wake of 'web 2.0': an interdisciplinary literature and website review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 79(6): 391-400. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2010.01.006
21. Morahan-Martin, J.M. 2004. How internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: a cross-cultural review. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 7(5), 497-510. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2004.7.497
22. Coulter, A. 2011. Engaging Patients in Health Care. Maidenhead, Open University Press.
23. Henwood, F., Wyatt, S., Hart, A., and Smith, J. 2003. 'Ignorance is bliss sometimes': constraints on the emergence of the 'informed patient' in the changing landscapes of health information. Sociology of Health atul Illness, 25(6): 589-607. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/1467-9566.00360 24
24. Lorig, K.R. and Holman, H.R. 2003. Self-management education: Flistory, definitions, outcomes and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioural Medicine, 26(1): 1-7. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1207/S 15 324796ABM2601_01
25. Richards, T., Montori, V.M., Godless, F., Lapsley, P, and Paul, D. 2013. Let the patient revolution begin. British Medical Journal, 346: f2614. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ bmj.f2614
26. Ahluwalia, S., Murray, E., Stevenson, F., and Kerr, C. 2010 A heartbeat moment: qualitative study of GP views of patients bringing health information from the internet to a consultation. British Journal of General Practice, 60(571): 88-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/ bjgp 10X483120
27. Brossard, D. and Lewenstein, B.V. 2010. A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: Using practice to inform theory. In L. Kahlor and PA. Stout (eds), Communicating Science. London, Routledge, pp. 11-39.
28. Leach, J., Yates, S., and Scanlon, E. 2009. Models of science communication. In R. Holliman, E. Whitelegg, E. Scanlon, S. Smidt and J. Thomas (eds), Investigating Science Communicatúm in the Information Age: Implications for Public Engagement atul Popular Media. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 128-146.
29. Goodare, H. 1999. Involving patients in clinical research: improves the quality of research. British Medical Journal, 319(7212): 724-725. http://www.ncbi. nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116584/ (accessed 15 August 2013).
30. Illes, J., Moser, M.A., McCormick, J.B., Racine, E., Blakeslee, S., Caplan, A., and Weiss, S. 2010. Neurotalk: improving the communication of neuroscience. National Review of Neuroscience, 11(1): 61-69. http://dx.doi. org/10.1038/nrn2 773
31. Siegel, V 2009. I kid you not. Disease Models and Mechanisms, 2(1-2): 5-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1242/ dmm.002352
32. Linte, C.A. 2009. Communicating your research in lay language. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, https://shared.uoit.ca/shared/faculty/grad/ assets/Three%20Minute%20Thesis/Communicating%20 in%20Lay%20Language.pdf (accessed 1 August 13).
33. Duke, M. 2012. How to write a lay summary. DCC How-to Guides. Edinburgh, Digital Curation Centre, http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/how-guides (accessed 20 May 2013).
34. Fernandez, C.V, Kodish, E., Shurin, S., and Weijer, C. 2003. Offering to return results to research participants: Attitudes and needs of principle investigators in the children's oncology group. Journal of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, 25 (9): 704-708.
35. Getz, K., Ouellette, E., Simmons, D., Briggs, W.M., Scott, N., and Wilenzick, N.J. 2010. Providing results to volunteers: evaluating a new pilot programme that provides a clinical trial outcome summaries to subjects. Applied Clinical Trials Online.
36. Research Information Network (RIN). 2012. Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: How to expand access to research publications: report of the working group on expanding access to research findings, http:// www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf (accessed 1 August 2013).
37. Knight, J. 2003. Scientific literacy: clear as mud. Nature, 423: 376-374. doi:10.1038/423376a
38. Shalowitz, D.I. and Miller, F.G. 2008. Communicating the results of clinical research to participants: attitudes, practices and future directions. Phs Medicine, 5(5): 91. doi: 10.1 371/journal.pmed.0050091
39. Denegri, S. and Faure, H. 2013. It's plain and simple: transparency is good for science and in the public interest. Trials, 14: 213, http://www.trialsjournal.com/con-tent/14/1/215 (accessed 1 August 2013).
40. Bryman, A. 2008. Social Research Methods, 3rd edn. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
41. Bell, J. 1999. Doing your Research Project: A Guide for First-time Researchers in Education atul Social Science, 3rd edn. Buckingham, Open University Press.
42. Flick, U. 2009. An Introduction to Qualitative Research, 4th edn. London, Sage.
43. Guion, L.A., Diehl, DC, and McDonald, D. 2002. Triangulation: establishing the validity of qualitative studies. University of Florida, https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ pdffiles/FY/FY39400.pdf (accessed 20 May 2013).
44. Boyatziz, R.E. 1998. Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.
45. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa