National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
MEMORANDUM

TO:         Sam Perdue, Communications
FROM:     Bo Bayles
DATE:     31 May, 2005
SUBJECT:     Improving Information Accessibility in NIAID Reports

As requested, I studied the report NIAID Counter-Bioterrorism Research Agenda for CDC Category A Agents (as a representative piece) to see how we at NIAID can improve information accessibility in our other reports. My analysis is below.

Letters of Transmittal

One piece that was absent from the NIAID Counter-Bioterrorism Research Agenda for CDC Category A Agents report was a letter of transmittal. A letter of transmittal is a short introduction sent along with a report, addressed to its reader. Transmittal letters should give a brief overview of a report's contents, note the methods used in compiling data, and acknowledge anyone who helped with the report. Transmittal letters should specifically note the purpose of the report and who requested or authorized its completion.

A letter of transmittal may not always be necessary or appropriate – a copy of a report that appears on the NIAID web site does not have an individual reader in mind. However, any copy of a report sent to an individual who might use the report should include a transmittal letter.

Cover and Title Page

The cover of the report I studied is effective as-is. It includes the report's title, the NIAID logo, and date of publication. Since this was a collaborative report, the cover does not include an author's name, but an editor's name might be appropriate. Reports written by individuals should have their authors listed on their covers and title pages.

The title page of the NIAID Counter-Bioterrorism Research Agenda for CDC Category A Agents report is also effective as-is. It presents the title of the report, which is a good description of the report's contents – the report is about NIAID's research agenda for CDC Category A agents. Publication data, including the report's publisher, publication number, and publication date, is also present. Since this report is intended for a mass audience and not an individual reader, it does not state to whom the report is addressed, and because it was written collaboratively, it does not state a writer's name. NIAID reports addressed to individuals should include this information, however.

Abstract

The report I studied does not have a specifically labeled abstract. Abstracts briefly summarize a report for technical readers so they can decide whether they need to read the full report. There are two types of abstracts: descriptive and informative. A descriptive abstract merely describes what information is in the report, listing each topic. An informative abstract adds information on the reports' major findings and conclusions.

The NIAID Counter-Bioterrorism Research Agenda for CDC Category A Agents report does include a “Preface” section that contains much of the information necessary for a descriptive abstract. It notes the date and purpose of the report, and information on why the report was written (to explain the recommendations made by an expert panel). However, some readers may not find this information, since it isn't labeled as an abstract. If the convention with documents of this type is to call the abstract a preface, that convention should be followed. Otherwise, I recommend labeling technical summaries as abstracts.

The abstract for the report I studied is missing some helpful information. The report contains information on anthrax, smallpox, plague, botulism, tularemia, and viral hemorrhagic fevers, but the abstract does not mention any of them specifically. A reader looking for information on one of these agents might choose not to read the report if the abstract doesn't note that they are covered.

Table of Contents

The table of contents of the NIAID Counter-Bioterrorism Research Agenda for CDC Category A Agents report is inadequate, and makes finding information in the report difficult. An effective table of contents provides the page numbers for each section and subsection of the report, providing quick access to needed information.

Only generic top-level headings are listed in the report I studied. As a result, it would be difficult for a reader to find, for example, information on anthrax vaccines, since the Anthrax section of the report is over six pages long.

I would revise the table of contents to look like the following, with “Anthrax” as the example for the format for each section:

Table 1: Excerpt from revised Table of Contents

Another possible improvement for NIAID reports is a list of illustrations. The report I studied did not have tables or graphics, so omitting a list of illustrations is acceptable. However, reports that do use graphics can be more accessible to readers if they contain a list of illustrations and their page numbers in or after the table of contents.

One major omission from the NIAID Counter-Bioterrorism Research Agenda for CDC Category A Agents report is a non-technical summary of its contents and conclusions intended for “executives.” Since NIAID relies on congressional funding, it is likely that politicians that are not experts on microbial biology will be studying NIAID's reports. To make information accessible to them, a summary that is a fraction of the length of the reports should be included. Executive summaries should specifically describe the background for the report, using concrete numbers and statistics when appropriate. They should also specifically but non-technically describe the report's research, and touch on the research methods briefly. Most importantly, executive summaries should present the conclusions and recommendations that the report does in a manner that is consistent with the intended reader's technical background. The executive summary should be just long enough to give the reader an understanding of the report and its findings (5% of the full report's length is often used as a guideline). It should be referenced in the table of contents.

An executive summary for the report I studied could include: 1) An explanation of the report's purpose, explaining that the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases assembled a panel to “assess current research,” “identify goals for the highest priority... research,” and “make recommendations on the role of NIAID.” 2) A short statement of the expert panel's makeup, “researchers from academic centers and private industry... government, civilian agencies, and the military.” 3) An explanation of the panel's conclusions and findings for each threat analyzed by the report. The summary should include at least a statement from each subsection for each threat, with emphasis on the goals identified by the panel.

Appendices

Information that is  of interest to only a small number of readers or that is too lengthy to include in the body of a report should go in the back matter's appendices. The NIAID Counter-Bioterrorism Research Agenda for CDC Category A Agents report has an appendix for the names of the participants in the study about which it is reporting, an effective use of appendices. Some readers may want to know who was on the panel that made the recommendations for the report, but the list is much too long to be included in the report itself.

One confusing flaw in the report I read is a reference to an appendix that does not exist. On page 1, the report says: “The Institute has developed a Strategic Plan for Biodefense Research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which outlines plans for addressing research needs in the broad area of bioterrorism and emerging and reemerging infectious diseases. (See Appendix B.)” The note “See Appendix B” makes it sound like there is an appendix in the current report that “outlines the plans for addressing research needs,” but there is not. The note actually refers to Appendix B in a report entitled “Strategic Plan For Biodefense Research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID),” but this is not clear until the next sentence, which explains that “This Biodefense Research Agenda supplements the strategic plan.” This construction is confusing to readers, who might look for Appendix B in the report – a clearer reference would say “See Appendix B in the Strategic Plan...).”

Back Matter

Depending on the intended readers' technical backgrounds, NIAID reports might be more accessible if they included a glossary of terms and list of symbols. Since NIAID reports could be read by congressional representatives that might not have experience with medical terminology, a glossary might help convey the right information.

The NIAID Counter-Bioterrorism Research Agenda for CDC Category A Agents report I studied could be improved by including a glossary that defines technical terms used in it. For example, the glossary could include a definition for the terms “immunomodulator,” “immunoregulation,” and “immunocompromised” since they are used but not explained in the report.

Summary and Conclusions

NIAID's funding and credibility depend upon its reports' abilities to successfully convey information to those who use them. Effective front and back matter helps readers determine what reports to read in order to find specific information. NIAID can improve the information accessibility of its reports: by 1) adding a transmittal letter to reports sent to individuals, 2) providing a short, technical summary of the report labeled as an abstract, 3) making the Table of Contents more useful, and 4) adding to back matter. Please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.