What Affects Authors' and Editors' Use of Reporting Guidelines? Findings from an Online Survey and Qualitative Interviews
What Affects Authors' and Editors' Use of Reporting Guidelines? Findings from an Online Survey and Qualitative Interviews
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0121585
复制
发表时间：
2015-04-15
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Anderson, Rob
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fuller, Thomas;Pearson, Mark;Anderson, Rob
目的通过多种来源的数据，识别和理解影响作者和编辑在健康研究出版中使用报告指南的一些因素。设计混合方法研究，包括在线调查和对作者样本的半结构化访谈（在线调查：n = 56;回复率= 32%;半结构化访谈：n = 5）和期刊编辑（在线调查：n = 43;回复率= 27%;半结构化访谈：n = 6）参与发表健康和医学研究。参与者是从一项早期研究中招募的，该研究旨在检查TREND报告指南的有效性。结果四种类型的因素相互作用，影响作者和编辑使用报告指南的可能性;个人（例如，使用报告准则有多种原因）;人们工作的专业文化;环境（例如期刊的政策）;以及实用（例如有时间使用报告指南）。有多种原因使用报告指南是一个特别突出的因素，促进报告指南的使用为两组participator.ConclusionsImproving的完整性和一致性的研究报告的健康研究的完整性和综合性是至关重要的。使用报告准则为实现这一目标提供了一种可能切实有效的手段，但使用（或不使用）报告准则的决定要考虑到许多因素。这些发现可以用来为未来的研究提供信息，例如，测试我们在更广泛的理论框架内确定的因素，以了解专业实践的变化。高级专业人员对报告准则的使用似乎影响了人们对最佳做法的期望，并可被吸收到一个领域或学科的文化中。如果没有证据表明报告准则的有效性，如果没有持续的多方面努力来改进报告，似乎不太可能取得进展。
ObjectivesTo identify and understand, through data from multiple sources, some of the factors that affect authors' and editors' decisions to use reporting guidelines in the publication of health research.DesignMixed methods study comprising an online survey and semi-structured interviews with a sample of authors (online survey: n = 56; response rate = 32%; semi-structured interviews: n = 5) and journal editors (online survey: n = 43; response rate = 27%; semi-structured interviews: n = 6) involved in publishing health and medical research. Participants were recruited from an earlier study examining the effectiveness of the TREND reporting guideline.ResultsFour types of factors interacted to affect authors' and editors' likelihood of reporting guideline use; individual (e.g. having multiple reasons for use of reporting guidelines); the professional culture in which people work; environmental (e.g. policies of journals); and, practical (e.g. having time to use reporting guidelines). Having multiple reasons for using reporting guidelines was a particularly salient factor in facilitating reporting guidelines use for both groups of participants.ConclusionsImproving the completeness and consistency of reporting of research studies is critical to the integrity and synthesis of health research. The use of reporting guidelines offers one potentially efficient and effective means for achieving this, but decisions to use (or not use) reporting guidelines take many factors into account. These findings could be used to inform future studies that might, for example, test the factors that we have identified within a wider theoretical framework for understanding changes in professional practices. The use of reporting guidelines by senior professionals appears to shape the expectations of what constitutes best practice and can be assimilated into the culture of a field or discipline. Without evidence of effectiveness of reporting guidelines, and sustained, multifaceted efforts to improve reporting, little progress seems likely to be made.