{"id":1140,"date":"2026-04-22T07:00:38","date_gmt":"2026-04-22T07:00:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmjleader\/?p=1140"},"modified":"2026-04-15T09:03:05","modified_gmt":"2026-04-15T09:03:05","slug":"if-people-cannot-interpret-research-should-they-trust-it-by-lisa-bunn","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bmjleader\/2026\/04\/22\/if-people-cannot-interpret-research-should-they-trust-it-by-lisa-bunn\/","title":{"rendered":"If people cannot interpret research, should they trust it? By Lisa Bunn"},"content":{"rendered":"

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

The public are increasingly encouraged to trust evidence-based health and social care but are rarely engaged with complex interpretation of research that informs practitioner decisions. In everyday practice, professionals integrate research alongside experience and individual patient factors, yet this reasoning often remains invisible. As access to health information expands and patients take a more active role in decision making, this gap between evidence use and evidence communication risks undermining trust.<\/span><\/p>\n

Trust is not automatic; it develops through communication, transparency, and confidence that clinicians are both competent and acting in peoples\u2019 best interests.<\/span>1<\/sup><\/span>,<\/span>2<\/sup> <\/span>Evidence-based practice has generally strengthened this by promoting the integration of research evidence, practice expertise, and person-centred values<\/span>.3<\/sup> <\/span>However, as expectations of service-user involvement increase, the visibility of how evidence is used becomes more important.<\/span>4<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

Significant investment has been made in developing a research-skilled workforce, embedding research activity across health and social care roles.<\/span>5<\/sup> <\/span>While this is essential, it may be insufficient on its own. Sustaining trust in modern health and care requires not only the use of evidence, but making it visible, understandable, and open to discussion.<\/span><\/p>\n

The hidden work of evidence in practice<\/strong><\/p>\n

Practitioners routinely balance multiple sources of information, including research findings, professional experience, and individual circumstances such as comorbidities, lifestyle, and preferences.<\/span>6<\/sup> <\/span>Evidence derived from population studies must be interpreted in the context of individual need. This process is complex, rapid, and largely implicit.<\/span><\/p>\n

In most consultations, service users are presented with recommendations rather than the reasoning that underpins them. While this supports efficiency in time-limited encounters, it limits opportunities for shared understanding. Evidence from shared decision-making studies shows that service users are more likely to feel confident and engaged when they understand how and why decisions are <\/span>made<\/span>7,8<\/sup><\/span> and consideration of developing health and care literate models has grown over the last decade.<\/span>9<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

From a leadership perspective, this raises an important question: Should implementation of evidence-based practice be judged solely on whether evidence is used, or also on how it is communicated and understood?<\/span><\/p>\n

Expanding access to evidence: Opportunity and risk<\/strong><\/p>\n

Efforts to make research more accessible are increasing. Plain language summaries, digital platforms, and AI-enabled tools can now translate complex findings into more accessible formats.<\/span>10,11<\/sup><\/span> Patient-held records and digital tools are also evolving, with potential to link personal health information to relevant evidence and decision support.<\/span>12<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

These developments may enhance transparency and support patient engagement. However, they also introduce new challenges. Research evidence is often uncertain, contested, and context-dependent. Simplified summaries may not capture these complexities, and differences between algorithmic outputs and professional judgement can be difficult to interpret.<\/span>4,13<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

Without careful mediation, increased access to information may create confusion rather than clarity. Trust may be weakened if patients are exposed to evidence without support to interpret its relevance and limitations.<\/span>2<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

Is a research-skilled workforce enough?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Policy initiatives increasingly position research as a core component of professional roles, with benefits including improved innovation, service performance, and recruitment to clinical studies.<\/span>14<\/sup><\/span> However, research activity can and often remains largely invisible to patients and is often constrained by competing service pressures.<\/span>15,16<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

At the same time, health systems expect patients to take a more active role in managing long-term conditions and making decisions beyond clinical settings. This assumes a level of confidence in understanding health information that is not evenly distributed and risks widening inequalities.<\/span>17,18<\/sup> <\/span>Patients with fewer educational or digital resources may be less able to assess the quality or relevance of evidence, particularly when information is conflicting.<\/span><\/p>\n

Developing a research-skilled workforce is therefore necessary but not sufficient. Without parallel efforts to support understanding and communication, there is a risk that increased access to information may widen, rather than reduce, inequalities in care.<\/span>19,20<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

Making evidence visible<\/strong><\/p>\n

If trust in healthcare is to be sustained, evidence must be made visible within clinical encounters. This does not mean overwhelming patients with data, but supporting meaningful explanation of how evidence informs decisions, including its uncertainties and limitations.<\/span><\/p>\n

Clinicians already perform this interpretive work, but it is rarely recognised or resourced. Making evidence visible requires time, training, and system-level support. Digital tools and decision aids may help, but should be designed to facilitate conversations rather than replace them.<\/span>11<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

There is also a need to strengthen public understanding of research, so that patients are better equipped to engage with evidence in ways that support, rather than hinder, shared decision making.<\/span>10<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

Implications for leaders<\/strong><\/p>\n

Leaders have a critical role in ensuring that investment in research capacity translates into improved patient experience and trust. This requires a shift in focus from evidence use alone to evidence communication and understanding.<\/span><\/p>\n

Key priorities include:<\/strong><\/p>\n