Abstract:Plain english summary: Why did we do this study? It can be difficult for scientists to communicate their research findings to the public. This is partly due to the complexity of translating scientific language into words that the public understand. Further, it may be hard for the public to find out about and locate information about research studies. We aimed to adapt some scientific articles about the links between dementia and stroke into lay summaries to be displayed online for the general public. How did we do it? We collaborated with five people from a volunteer organisation, VOICENorth. They took part in two group discussions about studies reporting on the link between dementia and stroke, and selected four studies to translate into lay summaries and display on a website. We discussed the layout and language of the summaries and made adaptations to make them more understandable to the general public. What did we find? We were able to work with members of the public to translate research findings into lay summaries suitable for a general audience. We made changes to language and layout including the use of 'question and answer' style layouts, the addition of a reference list of scientific terms, and removing certain words. What does this mean? Working with members of the public is a realistic way to create resources that improve the accessibility of research findings to the wider public. Abstract: Background Scientific research is often poorly understood by the general public and difficult for them to access. This presents a major barrier to disseminating and translating research findings. Stroke and dementia are both major public health issues, and research has shown lifestyle measures help to prevent them. This project aimed to select a series of studies from the Newcastle Cognitive Function after Stroke cohort (COGFAST) and create lay summaries comprehensible and accessible to the public. Methods We used a focus group format to collaborate with five members of the public to review COGFAST studies, prioritise those of most interest to the wider public, and modify the language and layout of the selected lay summaries. Focus groups were audio-taped and the team used the data to make iterative amendments, as suggested by members of the public, to the summaries and to a research website. We calculated the Flesch reading ease and Flesch-Kincaid grade level for each summary before and after the changes were made. Results In total, we worked with five members of the public in two focus groups to examine draft lay summaries, created by researchers, relating to eight COGFAST studies. Members of the public prioritised four COGFAST lay summaries according to the importance of the topic to the general public. We made a series of revisions to the summaries including the use of 'question and answer' style layouts, the addition of a glossary, and the exclusion of scientific jargon. Group discussion highlighted that lay summaries should be engaging, concise and comprehensible. We incorporated suggestions from members of the public into the design of a study website to display the summaries. The application of existing quantitative tools to estimate readability resulted in an apparently paradoxical increase in complexity of the lay summaries following the changes made. Conclusion This study supports previous literature demonstrating challenges in creating generic guidelines for researchers to create lay summaries. Existing quantitative metrics to assess readability may be inappropriate for assessing scientific lay summaries. We have shown it is feasible and successful to involve members of the public to create lay summaries to communicate the findings of complex scientific research. Trial registration Not applicable to the lay summary project.

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

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

What Author Instructions Do Health Journals Provide for Writing Plain Language Summaries? A Scoping Review

A practical 'How-To' Guide to plain language summaries (PLS) of peer-reviewed scientific publications: results of a multi-stakeholder initiative utilizing co-creation methodology

Methodological components, structure and quality assessment tools for evidence summaries: a scoping review

The use of a large language model to create plain language summaries of evidence reviews in healthcare: A feasibility study

"Is all the stuff about neurons necessary?" The development of lay summaries to disseminate findings from the Newcastle Cognitive Function after Stroke (COGFAST) study

Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research.

Are plain language summaries published in health journals written according to instructions and health literacy principles? A systematic environmental scan

Extending the reach of science - Talk in plain language

Facilitators of and barriers to patient and public involvement in building learning health systems in community health services settings: a scoping review protocol

Health literacy education programmes developed for qualified health professionals: a scoping review protocol

A protocol for co-creating research project lay summaries with stakeholders: guideline development for Canada’s AGE-WELL network

Patient, caregiver and other knowledge user engagement in consensus-building healthcare initiatives: a scoping review protocol

Evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development group members: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol

Optimizing Readability and Format of Plain Language Summaries for Medical Research Articles: Cross-sectional Survey Study

Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics

The Lay Person's Guide to Biomedicine: Orchestrating Large Language Models

Automated Lay Language Summarization of Biomedical Scientific Reviews

How to Write a Systematic Review of the Literature

Recommendations for developing accessible patient information leaflets for clinical trials to address English language literacy as a barrier to research participation