The potential for graphical abstracts to enhance science communication

Abstract

Science communication, including formats such as podcasts, news interviews, or graphical abstracts, can contribute to the acceleration of translational research by improving knowledge transfer to patient, policymaker, and practitioner communities. In particular, graphical abstracts, which are optional for articles published in Translational Behavioral Medicine as well as many other journals, are created by authors of scientific articles or by editorial staff to visually present a study’s design, findings, and implications, to improve comprehension among non-academic audiences. The use of graphical abstracts in scientific journals has increased in the past 10–15 years; however, most scientists are not trained in how to develop them, which presents a challenge for creating graphical abstracts that engage the public. In this article, the authors describe graphical abstracts and offer suggestions for their construction based on the extant literature. Specifically, graphical abstracts should use a solid background, employ an easily readable font, combine visuals with words, convey only the essential study design information and 1–3 “take-home” points, have a clear organizational structure, contain restrained and accessible use of color, use single-color icons, communicate ways to access the full-text article, and include the contact information for the lead author. Authors should obtain feedback on graphical abstract drafts prior to dissemination. There is emerging research on the benefits of graphical abstracts in terms of impact and engagement; however, it will be essential for future research to determine how to optimize the design of graphical abstracts, in order to engage patient, policymaker, and practitioner communities in improving behavioral health.

Science communication through graphical abstracts can improve reach of research discoveries as well as engagement with important communities.

Implications.

Practice: To expedite dissemination of research findings and improve uptake into clinical practice, practitioners should consider that accessing and sharing graphical abstracts of the latest behavioral science may accelerate translational research due to the easily digestible format and presentation of succinct “take home” points.

Policy: New public policies, especially those targeting individual and community health, may be best communicated with graphical abstracts; policymakers may also urge scientists to accompany publications with graphical abstracts to facilitate incorporation of the latest science into public policies.

Research: Graphical abstracts can accelerate translational research and should be carefully constructed to optimize knowledge transfer (e.g. combine visuals with words, convey only the essential study design information and 1–3 “take-home” points, have a clear organizational structure, contain restrained use of color, use single-color icons, and communicate ways to access the full-text article).

Introduction

The translation gap between research discoveries into practice is often estimated at 17 years [1]. Ideally, science communication, including formats such as podcasts, news interviews, or graphical abstracts, could contribute the acceleration of translational research by improving knowledge transfer regarding scientific findings. Improvements in knowledge transfer to patient, policymaker, and practitioner communities are essential, since journal articles are rarely accessed by anyone other than other scientists [2]. In particular, graphical abstracts (also sometimes known as infographics or visual abstracts) are created by authors of scientific articles or by editorial staff to visually present a study’s design, findings, and implications, to improve comprehension among non-academic audiences. Given data that scientific abstracts’ readability has decreased from 1881 to 2015 due to the frequency of scientific jargon [3], the role for graphical abstracts perhaps has never been so important. With the availability of modern science communication methods, such as sharing results on social media, adding visuals may increase audience attention and engagement [4].

Graphical abstracts are often an optional component for scientific articles, including for Translational Behavioral Medicine; however, their use has increased in the past 10–15 years, particularly for scientific articles compared with other manuscript types [5]. Importantly, graphical abstracts appear to increase traffic to scientific abstracts [6]. Unfortunately, their full potential of communicating research findings with the public may not be realized; Chapman et al. found that 95% of the engagement on Twitter with graphical abstracts was by health care providers and only 5% engagement by members of the public [7]. Despite a growing need for graphical abstracts accompanied by a growing opportunity to share graphical abstracts through official (e.g. scientific journals) and less formal (e.g. social media) channels, most scientists are not trained in their creation.

As evidenced by vastly different guidelines across journals, there is also a lack of consensus in the field on how best to create graphical abstracts [5]. For example, some are merely a figure from the manuscript, while others are an original summary of content. In addition, graphical abstracts vary widely in word count, from no words to many words. Thus, it will be important to determine how graphical abstracts can be designed to meet the needs of varied audiences, including the patients, health care professionals, policymakers, and other scientists.

Recent research indicates that, consistent with the Elaboration Likelihood model [4], graphical abstracts may be ideally formulated using a combination of words and images. Specifically, Tuscher concluded in a literature review that although we process images faster than words, our comprehension is similar between images-only and words-only visualizations and pairing images with words improves comprehension [8]. Other research supports pairing words with images, since Bredbenner and Simon found that both non-science-related participants recruited through social media and participants recruited through science-focused organizations often indicated that it would be helpful if there were words paired with images in graphical abstracts [9]. In addition, although Buljan et al. found no differences in knowledge acquisition between a graphical abstract and a text-based plain language summary in samples of university students, patients, and doctors, both formats led to better knowledge acquisition than the traditional scientific abstract in all samples, and all participants preferred the graphical abstract over the plain language summary [10]. Thus, according to self-report and empirically observed findings about ideal science communication methods, the argument for using the combination of text and image-based graphical abstracts in science communication appears to be clear and generalizable while other guidance on graphical abstract construction is emerging (Table 1). Figure 1 provides an example of the differences in a graphical abstract that adheres to these suggestions compared with a graphical abstract that does not adhere to the suggestions.

Table 1.

Recommendations for creating graphical abstracts for science communication

Use a solid background [11]

Use a font that is large enough and easy to read [11]

Pair words with images [5]

Minimize images and text to the essential components [12]

Clear organization along either a vertical or horizontal plane [13]

Clear indications of the relationships between images [13]

Create an actual summary of the study design and findings, rather than using an existing figure from the manuscript [3]

Use color in moderation, with infrequent use of emphasis colors (e.g. red, yellow) [12] and consideration of contrasting colors for individuals with colorblindness [11]

Use single-color icons, rather than photos or multi-color cartoons [14]

Communicate 1–3 take home points [15]

Obtain feedback on the graphical abstract before dissemination (ideally from the target audience) [16]

Include the link and QR code to the original article

Consider including contact information for the lead author, to facilitate communication with policymakers or the media

Figure 1.

Examples that adhere and do not adhere to the recommendations for creating graphical abstracts. Panel 2 was Originally Published in the Annals of Behavioral Medicine article, “A Postpartum Weight Loss-Focused Stepped-Care Intervention in a Military Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” Panel 1. Graphical abstract that does not adhere to recommendations. Panel 2. Graphical abstract that adheres to recommendations.

New evidence demonstrates a positive impact of including graphical abstracts with scientific articles based on various metrics. Specifically, articles with graphical abstracts may obtain higher Altmetric attention scores than those without [17–19]. However, there are mixed results regarding whether graphical abstracts increase citations in the short term (1–3 years) [6, 13, 17, 19]. These inconsistent findings may be due to many articles being behind paywalls, the fact that some graphical abstracts do not include the link to the full article, or because viewers may believe that they obtained all the necessary information from the graphical abstract. Nonetheless, research has consistently demonstrated that visual abstracts resulted in more engagement on Twitter and access to the full-text article compared with text-only tweets [7, 12, 14, 19]. In contrast, Bredbenner et al. found that video abstracts and lay summaries had better comprehension and enjoyment scores compared with scientific abstracts and graphical abstracts [9]; however, it is important to note that the graphical abstracts tested in this study did not contain any words, which is somewhat unusual [15] and may been essential to convey the relatively complex molecular biology concepts in these abstracts [9]. Finally, in graphical abstracts that included words, Chapman et al. found greater engagement on Twitter with graphical abstracts compared with lay summaries [7]. Together these findings indicate that, across various engagement metrics, graphical abstracts appear to improve science communication with various audiences. Nonetheless, as the landscape of social media evolves, it will be important to examine how engagement with graphical abstracts also changes. It will also be critical to investigate how practitioners and policymakers utilize graphical abstracts to change practice and implement optimized public policies; it is unknown if these groups also benefit from stylistic differences in graphical abstract design.

Many scientists are apprehensive about creating graphical abstracts because they believe they do not possess the necessary graphic design skills or they believe that they do not have time to create graphical abstracts. However, related to graphic design skills, modern-day free or low-cost graphic design or presentation software, including Canva, Microsoft PowerPoint, or BioRender, make the graphical abstract construction process accessible and feasible for scientists. Furthermore, the Society of Behavioral Medicine’s Science Communication Toolkit also has other resources that may be beneficial in developing skills for creating graphical abstracts [20]. In addition, while we acknowledge the very real concern about time for creating graphical abstracts and the competing demands upon scientists’ time, we have found that it is possible to create graphical abstracts in ~1 hour after the initial learning period. Another option for overcoming time constraints for developing graphical abstracts would be to train and supervise staff and trainees in creating graphical abstracts. Developing skills in creating graphical abstracts would also be beneficial for trainees and junior faculty as an asset to their future collaborators and for their own programs of research. Hopefully, the effort spent in creation of graphical abstracts will pay off, in increasing knowledge of the importance of evidence-based program implementation among policy, community, and provider decision-makers.

In conclusion, we advocate for research that determines how to optimize the design of graphical abstracts for various audiences (e.g. health care providers, policymakers, patients), and we believe that behavioral scientists, as experts in human behavior, would be ideally suited to conduct this work. There are numerous aspects of graphical abstract that could be tested (e.g. ideal titles for graphical abstracts); however, the existing literature is quite limited regarding many of these details. It will also be important to determine which forms of science communication (e.g. graphical abstracts, lay summaries, highlights, public significance statements) are best for which audiences. Furthermore, it will be important to investigate how graphical abstracts can be optimally created to broaden accessibility and improve inclusivity of individuals with visual impairment [11]. In addition, providing training and financial support for scientists in creating well-designed science communication will be essential for optimal uptake. Finally, through creating these optimized science communication strategies, we can pursue the ultimate mission of translational research—engaging research, practice, policy, and patient communities to improve public health.

Conflicts of Interest Statement

None declared.

Funding

The authors’ time was supported by these National Institutes of Health research grants: K23HL136845 and R01DK135227.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

This study does not involve human participants and informed consent was therefore not required.

Welfare of Animals

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.