Behavioral ChangesPhase 3SWAR02-2026NCT07333924
Randomised Study Within a Review (SWAR) to Compare Communication of the Findings of Systematic Reviews to the Public by Plain Language Summary or Video Abstract
A Phase 3 study testing Plain language summary and Animated video in people with Behavioral Changes, run by Queen's University, Belfast at 1 site in United Kingdom.
Trial summary
A systematic review is a type of research that collects and analyses all the existing studies on a specific topic in a structured and organised way. Instead of just looking at one study, it combines results from many studies to get a clearer, more reliable answer to a question. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Behavioral Changes
- What is being tested?
- Plain language summary and Animated video
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 67 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited Kingdom
- Study dates
- 15 Jan 2026to 18 Mar 2026
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Adults (aged 18 years+)
- Any gender
- Able to read and understand English
- Willing to read and listen to review summaries, and answer questions
- Provide informed consent to participate
Who cannot join
- People with learning difficulty
- People who do not read or understand English
- People with hearing or visual impairment
- People under 18 years of age
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: How Can we Best Communicate the Findings of Systematic Reviews to the Public? A Study Within A Review
A systematic review is a type of research that collects and analyses all the existing studies on a specific topic in a structured and organised way. Instead of just looking at one study, it combines results from many studies to get a clearer, more reliable answer to a question. However, the complex language used in systematic reviews often makes them inaccessible to the public, highlighting the need for effective communication strategies, particularly for reviews relating to health and social care or public health. However, there is limited research exploring alternative ways to present research articles, with only a few delivery methods studied so far. It remains unclear how different styles of communicating might effectively convey scientific findings accurately or enhance public engagement and understanding of complex topics.
Studies Within A Review (SWARs) are studies which are embedded into a systematic review and aim to form an evidence base to improve how we plan, do, and share systematic reviews. SWARs offer a promising way of improving the methodology of systematic reviews and dissemination of their findings.
Read more
This randomised trial aims to address the current research gap by identifying the effectiveness of two different ways to communicate systematic review findings to the public and determining which methods are more suitable for different audiences: participants will be asked to read a summary or watch an animated video of a summary of both reviews and then complete a questionnaire about the reviews' findings and conclusions. The study will assess outcomes such as comprehension, perceived understanding, engagement, and interest of participants in reading the full reviews.
By evaluating the impact of different communication strategies, this study aims to strengthen the evidence base for methods to communicate complex scientific findings to the public. The results are expected to provide valuable insights for optimising the communication of the key findings of systematic reviews, ensuring that summaries are clear, engaging and accessible.
Read the detailed description
This randomised Study Within a Review (SWAR) will address the uncertainty in communicating the findings of systematic reviews by comparing the effectiveness of two communication methods. We will evaluate participants' understanding of the key findings from two systematic reviews and their interest in seeking further information. These systematic reviews (summarised below), while covering entirely different topics, are both complex and highly relevant to public health.
Systematic Review 1: Clinical Utility of Biomarkers for Outcomes Prediction in Adults with Suspected Sepsis Presenting to the Emergency Department Sepsis is associated with a high mortality rate, and early detection and diagnosis is crucial. This review aimed to determine whether biomarkers measured in patients presenting to an emergency department with suspected sepsis may predict deterioration, including mortality, critical care admission, organ failure, and septic shock.
Systematic Review 2: Local antibiotics for patients undergoing surgery for open fractures Open fractures are serious injuries where the bone breaks through the skin, often leading to complications like infection. Treating these injuries can be complex and expensive, with many patients needing multiple operations and ongoing care. This review sought to determine if there is evidence that local antibiotics may reduce infection in people who are having surgery for open fractures.
The objectives of this study are
- To determine whether a plain language summary or animated video summary is more effective in conveying the core message of a systematic review.
- To compare the effects of the two methods on perceived understanding, engagement, and interest in reading the full text of the systematic review
Recruitment plan We will recruit using multiple methods. The study will be advertised through various channels, including posters displayed in common areas of the host university (Queen's University Belfast) and other popular locations across Belfast, social media platforms such as Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIN, and word of mouth. People interested in taking part will be able to contact the research team directly using the provided contact details.
Study procedures Potential participants will email or click on a QR code on the study posters (in person or via social media), which will bring them to the study information and a consent form. They will read that their participation will take a maximum of 30 minutes for the first round, and that they will asked to participate in a second round of questions 1 to 2 weeks later, which can be done via telephone pr email if preferred and would take less than 10 minutes. They will be asked to include their first name or a nick-name and contact details (email or telephone) so that the research team can contact them. Participants will also be asked to answer some additional questions to collect their age, scientific education and whether they had any scientific training after secondary education, and if they feel they know anything about the review topics.
The research team will contact those who have volunteered and have agreed to participate by email or telephone. A meeting will be arranged for a public space where they can sit comfortably with minimal noise and distractions. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups: either the Reading Group or the Video Group (as shown in Table 1). Within each group, participants will be randomly assigned to start with Review 1 or Review 2. Once people are enrolled in the study, they will be assigned a unique ID number.
The intervention will be administered on a tablet computer. Those in the Reading Group will read the summary of their first review on the tablet and then answer related questions. After completing this review, they will read the summary of their second review and answer corresponding questions. Participants in the Video Group will use headphones while watching the Animated Video summary of their first review and then answer related questions on the tablet. After completing that review, they will watch an Animated Video summary of their second review and answer corresponding questions.
Participants will be reminded that they will be contacted for a follow-up assessment 1-2 weeks after the initial session. They will be contacted using the contact method they provided during the consent process. Follow-up can be face-to-face, or by email or phone.
Statistical analysis Participants' responses related to the Plain Language Summary and Animated Video Summary of Review 1 and Review 2 will be compared. Differences between groups will be assessed using the T-test/Mann-Whitney U test (as appropriate). A convenience sample of 100 participants will be sought, based on the time available for the researcher to conduct the data gathering.
- Conditions
- Behavioral Changes
- Being tested
- Plain language summary, Animated video
- Keywords
- Plain language summary, Animated video, Study Within a Review (SWAR), Systematic reviews, Evidence synthesis, Public understanding
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Plain language summaryOther
A written summary of the systematic review.
Animated videoOther
An animated video summary of the systematic review.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Reading group | Active comparator | Written summary of a systematic review Receives: Other: Plain language summary |
| Video group | Experimental | Video summary of a systematic review Receives: Other: Animated video |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Immediate comprehension of the information presented in the review summary.
A multiple-choice question is included to assess participants' understanding of the primary focus of the research by asking them to choose from a list of topics about the focus of the review, only one of which is correct. There are also five questions presented as statements relating to specific content from the review summary and participants are required to indicate whether each statement is true or false. The unit of measure will be the proportion of participants who select the correct answer to each question. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.
Measured: Immediately after interaction with the summary.
Retention of the participant's comprehension of the information presented in the review summary
Participants will answer the same six questions that were used to assess their comprehension immediately after their interaction with the summary. This will include a multiple-choice question asking them to choose from a list of topics about the focus of the review, only one of which is correct. There are also five questions presented as statements relating to specific content from the review summary and participants are required to indicate whether each statement is true or false. The unit of measure will be the proportion of participants who select the correct answer to each question. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.
Measured: 1 to 2 weeks after interaction with the summary.
Secondary outcomes (3)
Participant's perceived understanding (i.e. how well they believe they understood the review summary)
Participants will be asked to rate their understanding of the review on a 5-point scale: 0 = Not a Bit; 1 = A Bit; 2 = Average; 3 = Mostly; 4 = Very Much.
The unit of measure will be the mean and median for these scores within each intervention group. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.
Measured: Immediately after interaction with the summary.
Participant's enjoyment of their interaction with the summary
Participants will be asked to rate the extent to which they found the review summary engaging on a 5-point scale: 0 = Not a Bit; 1 = A Bit; 2 = Average; 3 = Mostly; 4 = Very Much.
The unit of measure will be the mean and median for these scores within each intervention group. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.
Measured: Immediately after interaction with the summary.
Participant's interest in reading the full text of the systematic review after their interaction with its summary
Participants will be asked to rate their interest in finding out more about the systematic review on a 5-point scale: 0 = Not a Bit; 1 = A Bit; 2 = Average; 3 = Mostly; 4 = Very Much.
The unit of measure will be the mean and median for these scores within each intervention group. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.
Measured: Immediately after interaction with the summary.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted12 Jan 2026
- Study start15 Jan 2026
- Primary completion18 Mar 2026
- Study completion18 Mar 2026
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (2)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Behavioral ChangesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 67 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Queen's University, Belfast
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Aberdeen Belfast Evidence Collaboration
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Mike Clarke, Queen's University, Belfast
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07333924
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SWAR02-2026
- Acronym
- SWAR02-2026
- Status last verified
- Mar 2026
- First submitted
- 18 Dec 2025
- Last updated
- 24 Mar 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided
Publications
Maguire LK, Clarke M. How much do you need: a randomised experiment of whether readers can understand the key messages from summaries of Cochrane Reviews without reading the full review. J R Soc Med. 2014 Nov;107(11):444-9. doi: 10.1177/0141076814546710. Epub 2014 Oct 23.
PubMed 25341445Devane D, Burke NN, Treweek S, Clarke M, Thomas J, Booth A, Tricco AC, Saif-Ur-Rahman KM. Study within a review (SWAR). J Evid Based Med. 2022 Dec;15(4):328-332. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12505. Epub 2022 Dec 13. No abstract available.
PubMed 36513956
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 24 Mar 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- How Can we Best Communicate the Findings of Systematic Reviews to the Public? A Study Within A Review
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07333924
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SWAR02-2026 / SWAR02-2026
- Conditions
- Behavioral Changes
- Keywords
- Plain language summary, Animated video, Study Within a Review (SWAR), Systematic reviews, Evidence synthesis, Public understanding
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 67 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Queen's University, BelfastUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Aberdeen Belfast Evidence Collaboration
- Study start
- 15 Jan 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 18 Mar 2026 (actual)
- Study completion
- 18 Mar 2026 (actual)
- First posted
- 12 Jan 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
A systematic review is a type of research that collects and analyses all the existing studies on a specific topic in a structured and organised way. Instead of just looking at one study, it combines results from many studies to get a clearer, more reliable answer to a question. However, the complex language used in systematic reviews often makes them inaccessible to the public, highlighting the need for effective communication strategies, particularly for reviews relating to health and social care or public health. However, there is limited research exploring alternative ways to present research articles, with only a few delivery methods studied so far. It remains unclear how different styles of communicating might effectively convey scientific findings accurately or enhance public engagement and understanding of complex topics.
Studies Within A Review (SWARs) are studies which are embedded into a systematic review and aim to form an evidence base to improve how we plan, do, and share systematic reviews. SWARs offer a promising way of improving the methodology of systematic reviews and dissemination of their findings.
This randomised trial aims to address the current research gap by identifying the effectiveness of two different ways to communicate systematic review findings to the public and determining which methods are more suitable for different audiences: participants will be asked to read a summary or watch an animated video of a summary of both reviews and then complete a questionnaire about the reviews' findings and conclusions. The study will assess outcomes such as comprehension, perceived understanding, engagement, and interest of participants in reading the full reviews.
By evaluating the impact of different communication strategies, this study aims to strengthen the evidence base for methods to communicate complex scientific findings to the public. The results are expected to provide valuable insights for optimising the communication of the key findings of systematic reviews, ensuring that summaries are clear, engaging and accessible.
Detailed description
This randomised Study Within a Review (SWAR) will address the uncertainty in communicating the findings of systematic reviews by comparing the effectiveness of two communication methods. We will evaluate participants' understanding of the key findings from two systematic reviews and their interest in seeking further information. These systematic reviews (summarised below), while covering entirely different topics, are both complex and highly relevant to public health.
Systematic Review 1: Clinical Utility of Biomarkers for Outcomes Prediction in Adults with Suspected Sepsis Presenting to the Emergency Department Sepsis is associated with a high mortality rate, and early detection and diagnosis is crucial. This review aimed to determine whether biomarkers measured in patients presenting to an emergency department with suspected sepsis may predict deterioration, including mortality, critical care admission, organ failure, and septic shock.
Systematic Review 2: Local antibiotics for patients undergoing surgery for open fractures Open fractures are serious injuries where the bone breaks through the skin, often leading to complications like infection. Treating these injuries can be complex and expensive, with many patients needing multiple operations and ongoing care. This review sought to determine if there is evidence that local antibiotics may reduce infection in people who are having surgery for open fractures.
The objectives of this study are
- To determine whether a plain language summary or animated video summary is more effective in conveying the core message of a systematic review.
- To compare the effects of the two methods on perceived understanding, engagement, and interest in reading the full text of the systematic review
Recruitment plan We will recruit using multiple methods. The study will be advertised through various channels, including posters displayed in common areas of the host university (Queen's University Belfast) and other popular locations across Belfast, social media platforms such as Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIN, and word of mouth. People interested in taking part will be able to contact the research team directly using the provided contact details.
Study procedures Potential participants will email or click on a QR code on the study posters (in person or via social media), which will bring them to the study information and a consent form. They will read that their participation will take a maximum of 30 minutes for the first round, and that they will asked to participate in a second round of questions 1 to 2 weeks later, which can be done via telephone pr email if preferred and would take less than 10 minutes. They will be asked to include their first name or a nick-name and contact details (email or telephone) so that the research team can contact them. Participants will also be asked to answer some additional questions to collect their age, scientific education and whether they had any scientific training after secondary education, and if they feel they know anything about the review topics.
The research team will contact those who have volunteered and have agreed to participate by email or telephone. A meeting will be arranged for a public space where they can sit comfortably with minimal noise and distractions. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of two groups: either the Reading Group or the Video Group (as shown in Table 1). Within each group, participants will be randomly assigned to start with Review 1 or Review 2. Once people are enrolled in the study, they will be assigned a unique ID number.
The intervention will be administered on a tablet computer. Those in the Reading Group will read the summary of their first review on the tablet and then answer related questions. After completing this review, they will read the summary of their second review and answer corresponding questions. Participants in the Video Group will use headphones while watching the Animated Video summary of their first review and then answer related questions on the tablet. After completing that review, they will watch an Animated Video summary of their second review and answer corresponding questions.
Participants will be reminded that they will be contacted for a follow-up assessment 1-2 weeks after the initial session. They will be contacted using the contact method they provided during the consent process. Follow-up can be face-to-face, or by email or phone.
Statistical analysis Participants' responses related to the Plain Language Summary and Animated Video Summary of Review 1 and Review 2 will be compared. Differences between groups will be assessed using the T-test/Mann-Whitney U test (as appropriate). A convenience sample of 100 participants will be sought, based on the time available for the researcher to conduct the data gathering.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Reading group | Active comparator | Other: Plain language summaryWritten summary of a systematic review |
| Video group | Experimental | Other: Animated videoVideo summary of a systematic review |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Adults (aged 18 years+)
- Any gender
- Able to read and understand English
- Willing to read and listen to review summaries, and answer questions
- Provide informed consent to participate
Key exclusion criteria (4 listed)
- People with learning difficulty
- People who do not read or understand English
- People with hearing or visual impairment
- People under 18 years of age
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Plain language summaryA written summary of the systematic review. | Other | Reading group |
| Animated videoAn animated video summary of the systematic review. | Other | Video group |
Primary outcome
Immediate comprehension of the information presented in the review summary.
Time frame: Immediately after interaction with the summary.
A multiple-choice question is included to assess participants' understanding of the primary focus of the research by asking them to choose from a list of topics about the focus of the review, only one of which is correct. There are also five questions presented as statements relating to specific content from the review summary and participants are required to indicate whether each statement is true or false. The unit of measure will be the proportion of participants who select the correct answer to each question. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.
Retention of the participant's comprehension of the information presented in the review summary
Time frame: 1 to 2 weeks after interaction with the summary.
Participants will answer the same six questions that were used to assess their comprehension immediately after their interaction with the summary. This will include a multiple-choice question asking them to choose from a list of topics about the focus of the review, only one of which is correct. There are also five questions presented as statements relating to specific content from the review summary and participants are required to indicate whether each statement is true or false. The unit of measure will be the proportion of participants who select the correct answer to each question. The assessment tool was adapted from Bredbenner K, Simon SM. Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PloS ONE 2019;14(11):e0224697.
3 secondary outcomes
Participant's perceived understanding (i.e. how well they believe they understood the review summary)
Time frame: Immediately after interaction with the summary.
Participant's enjoyment of their interaction with the summary
Time frame: Immediately after interaction with the summary.
Participant's interest in reading the full text of the systematic review after their interaction with its summary
Time frame: Immediately after interaction with the summary.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 24 Mar 2026.
- Background: PubMed 25341445Maguire LK, Clarke M. How much do you need: a randomised experiment of whether readers can understand the key messages from summaries of Cochrane Reviews without reading the full review. J R Soc Med. 2014 Nov;107(11):444-9. doi: 10.1177/0141076814546710. Epub 2014 Oct 23.
- Background: PubMed 36513956Devane D, Burke NN, Treweek S, Clarke M, Thomas J, Booth A, Tricco AC, Saif-Ur-Rahman KM. Study within a review (SWAR). J Evid Based Med. 2022 Dec;15(4):328-332. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12505. Epub 2022 Dec 13. No abstract available.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided
Related trials for Behavioral Changes
Not yet recruiting
A Clinician-Patient Dual Behavior Change Framework to Leverage Informed Digital Nudges to Reduce Hospital Readmissions and Improve Patient Outcomes: A Trial for Scalable Strategy to Reduce Readmissions (PREVENT-R)
Readmission, Readmission Rates
Not yet recruiting
Evaluation of the Axomove Therapy Medical Device to Facilitate Adapted Physical Activity for Patients With Obesity
Obese Adults
Active, not recruiting
Helping Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Use Their Health Data for Healthy Diabetes Self-Management
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM)
Recruiting
Climate-Responsive Nutrition, WASH, and Heat Counselling for Maternal and Child Health in Sindh, Pakistan
Maternal Nutrition, Child Nutrition
Active, not recruitingPhase 2
Effects of Brain Stimulation on Food Intake and Behavioral Weight Loss Treatment
Electric Stimulation Therapy, Obesity
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing Plain language summary and Animated video in people with Behavioral Changes, run by Queen's University, Belfast at 1 site in United Kingdom.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 24 Mar 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United Kingdom. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Immediate comprehension of the information presented in the review summary. (time frame: Immediately after interaction with the summary.). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07333924, which also lists 2 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 24 Mar 2026.