Skip to main content

Table 2 Reviewed resources’ features (n = 80)

From: Recommended characteristics and processes for writing lay summaries of healthcare evidence: a co-created scoping review and consultation exercise

Characteristic

n (%)

Characteristic

n (%)

Source of data

Guidance for a specific condition

Grey literature

65 (81%)

Yes

22 (28%)

Peer-reviewed

15 (19%)

No

58 (72%)

Patients and public partners’ involvement in creation of the guidance

Guidance for a specific context

Yes

14 (18%)

Yes

30 (38%)

No

66 (82%)

No

50 (62%)

Country of publishing

Year of publication

United Kingdom

24 (30%)

2022

27 (34%)

Canada

19 (24%)

2021

13 (17%)

United States

19 (24%)

2020

5 (7%)

Norway

4 (5%)

2019

5 (7%)

India

2 (2%)

2018

6 (7%)

Australia

1 (1%)

2017

8 (10%)

Belgium

2(2%)

2016

2 (2%)

Germany

1 (1%)

2015

5(6%)

Iran

1 (1%)

2014

6 (7%)

Japan

1 (1%)

2013

2 (2%)

Mixed

6 (7%)

2012

1 (1%)

Objective of guidance*

Guidance target audience(s)

LS characteristics

79 (99%)

(A) Researchers

76 (95%)

Specific writing process

10 (13%)

(B) Others (patient and public partners,

4 (5%)

Both

9 (11%)

policymakers, funders, unspecified)

 
  1. *Some of the resources reported information on both writing lay summary and development process