Dataset Information

Quality of reporting of complex healthcare interventions and applicability of the CReDECI list - a survey of publications indexed in PubMed.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The development and evaluation of complex interventions in healthcare has obtained increased awareness. The Medical Research Council's (MRC) framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions and its update offers guidance for researchers covering the phases development, feasibility/piloting, and evaluation. Comprehensive reporting of complex interventions enhances transparency and is essential for researchers and policy-makers. Recently, a set of 16 criteria for reporting complex interventions in healthcare (CReDECI) was published. The aim of this study is to evaluate the reporting quality in publications of complex interventions adhering to either the first or the updated MRC framework, and to evaluate the applicability of CReDECI.

Methods

A systematic PubMed search was conducted. Two reviewers independently checked titles and abstracts for inclusion. Trials on complex interventions adhering to the MRC framework and including an evaluation study in English and German were included. For all included trials and for all publications which reported on phases prior to the evaluation study, related publications were identified via forward citation tracking. The quality of reporting was assessed independently by two reviewers using CReDECI. Inter-rater agreement and time needed to complete the assessment were determined.

Results

Twenty-six publications on eight trials were included. The number of publications per trial ranged from 1 to 6 (mean 3.25). The trials demonstrate a good reporting quality for the criteria referring to the development and feasibility/piloting. For the criteria addressing the introduction of the intervention and the evaluation, quality of reporting varied widely. Two trials fulfilled 7 and 8 items respectively, five trials fulfilled one to five items and one trial offered no information on any item. The mean number of items with differing ratings per trial was two. The time needed to rate a trial ranged from 30 to 90 minutes, depending on the number of publications.

Conclusions

Adherence to the MRC framework seems to have a positive impact on the reporting quality on the development and piloting of complex interventions. Reporting on the evaluation could be improved. CReDECI is a practical instrument to check the reporting quality of complex interventions and could be used alongside design-specific reporting guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Mohler R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3871759 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality of reporting of complex healthcare interventions and applicability of the CReDECI list - a survey of publications indexed in PubMed.

Möhler Ralph R Bartoszek Gabriele G Meyer Gabriele G

BMC medical research methodology 20131019

<h4>Background</h4>The development and evaluation of complex interventions in healthcare has obtained increased awareness. The Medical Research Council's (MRC) framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions and its update offers guidance for researchers covering the phases development, feasibility/piloting, and evaluation. Comprehensive reporting of complex interventions enhances transparency and is essential for researchers and policy-makers. Recently, a set of 16 criteri ...[more]

PMID: 24138207

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere have been calls for greater consideration of applicability and transferability in systematic reviews, to improve their usefulness in informing policy and practice. Understanding how evidence is, or is not applicable and transferable to varying local situations and contexts, is a key challenge for systematic review synthesis in healthcare. Assessing applicability and transferability in systematic reviews is reported to be difficult, particularly in reviews of complex interventions. There is a need for exploration of factors perceived to be important by policy-makers, and for further guidance on which items should be reported. In this paper we focus on the process of development of a framework that can be used by systematic reviewers to identify and report data across studies relating to applicability and transferability.MethodsThe framework was developed by scrutinising existing literature on applicability and transferability, examining data during a systematic review of highly complex changes to health service delivery, and was informed by stakeholder engagement. The items of the framework were thus grounded in both data identified during a real review, and stakeholder input. The paper describes examples of data identified using the framework during a review of integrated care interventions, and outlines how it informed analysis and reporting of the review findings.ResultsThe Framework for Implementation Transferability Applicability Reporting (FITAR) comprises 44 items which can be used to structure analysis and reporting across studies during systematic reviews of complex interventions. The framework prompts detailed consideration of contextual data during extraction and reporting, within areas of: patient type and populations; type of organisations and systems; financial and commissioning processes; systems leadership elements; features of services; features of the workforce; and finally elements of the interventions/initiatives.ConclusionsUse of the framework during our review of complex healthcare interventions helped the review team to surface contextual data, which may not be commonly extracted, analysed and reported. Further exploration and evaluation of systems for identifying and reporting these factors during reviews is required.

Project description:PurposeArthroscopy is an established sub-speciality in orthopaedics. With advancing technology, instrumentation and implants, this sub-speciality has seen an explosion of knowledge and techniques since its inception. The indications for arthroscopic management are increasing and, hence, the number of publications on this topic. There has been no study looking into the bibliometrics of all publications within this speciality. The purpose of this study was to look into the trends of published articles on arthroscopy from PubMed and Scopus including studying their citation numbers.Materials and methodsWe set out to look into the number of publications from the earliest up to 2019 and their trends and citation numbers in PubMed and Scopus. We also performed a VOS viewer analysis of MeSH terms and titles of publications to look at research trends over time.ResultsThere were 41,149 articles published on PubMed since 1955 and 50,373 articles on Scopus since 1939. The total number of citations were 912,630 for 38,338 cited articles. With 2864 publications in 2019, there was a more than four-fold increase from the number published in the year 2000. The knee joint was the most frequently published joint with an increasing trend in hip arthroscopy. Cohort studies were the most common with 13,180 articles followed by Reviews with 5746 articles. The top 10 authors, universities and journals were listed along with citation numbers. We analysed the trends of publications for each joint and compared them. Yearly citations have progressively increased to reach a maximum of 45,407 in 2007. Arthroscopy was the most published and cited journal on this topic. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS) (Am) had the most citations per article. The USA and Hospital for Special Surgery, New York were the most published country and university, respectively.ConclusionsThere is a healthy growth of publications on the subject of arthroscopy with a steep increase in the number of publications and citations in recent years. VOS Viewer analysis showed an evolution of research and practice in the field of arthroscopy. Recommendations were made for databases and search engines to improve on the search and analysis of such studies in the future.Level of evidence4.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Dissemination of research findings is central to research integrity and promoting discussion of new knowledge and its potential for translation into practice and policy. We investigated the frequency and format of dissemination to trial participants and patient groups. DESIGN:Survey of authors of clinical trials indexed in PubMed in 2014-2015. RESULTS:Questionnaire emailed to 19?321 authors; 3127 responses received (16%). Of these 3127 trials, 2690 had human participants and 1818 enrolled individual patients. Among the 1818, 498 authors (27%) reported having disseminated results to participants, 238 (13%) planned to do so, 600 (33%) did not plan to, 176 (10%) were unsure and 306 (17%) indicated 'other' or did not answer. Of the 498 authors who had disseminated, 198 (40%) shared academic reports, 252 (51%) shared lay reports, 111 (22%) shared both and 164 (33%) provided individualised study results. Of the 1818 trials, 577 authors (32%) shared/planned to share results with patients outside their trial by direct contact with charities/patient groups, 401 (22%) via patient communities, 845 (46%) via presentations at conferences with patient representation, 494 (27%) via mainstream media and 708 (39%) by online lay summaries. Relatively few of the 1818 authors reported dissemination was suggested by institutional bodies: 314 (17%) of funders reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 252 (14%) to patient groups; 333 (18%) of ethical review boards reportedly suggested dissemination to trial participants, 148 (8%) to patient groups. Authors described many barriers to dissemination. CONCLUSION:Fewer than half the respondents had disseminated to participants (or planned to) and only half of those who had disseminated shared lay reports. Motivation to disseminate results to participants appears to arise within research teams rather than being incentivised by institutional bodies. Multiple factors need to be considered and various steps taken to facilitate wide dissemination of research to participants.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious reviews show that reporting guidelines have improved the quality of trial reports in medicine, yet existing guidelines may not be fully suited for social and psychological intervention trials.Objective/designWe conducted a two-part study that reviewed (1) reporting guidelines for and (2) the reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials.Data sources(1) To identify reporting guidelines, we systematically searched multiple electronic databases and reporting guideline registries. (2) To identify trials, we hand-searched 40 journals with the 10 highest impact factors in clinical psychology, criminology, education, and social work. ELIGIBILITY: (1) Reporting guidelines consisted of articles introducing a checklist of reporting standards relevant to social and psychological intervention trials. (2) Trials reported randomised experiments of complex interventions with psychological, social, or health outcomes.Results(1) We identified 19 reporting guidelines that yielded 147 reporting standards relevant to social and psychological interventions. Social and behavioural science guidelines included 89 standards not found in CONSORT guidelines. However, CONSORT guidelines used more recommended techniques for development and dissemination compared to other guidelines. (2) Our review of trials (n = 239) revealed that many standards were poorly reported, such as identification as a randomised trial in titles (20% reported the information) and abstracts (55%); information about blinding (15%), sequence generation (23%), and allocation concealment (17%); and details about actual delivery of experimental (43%) and control interventions (34%), participant uptake (25%), and service environment (28%). Only 11 of 40 journals referenced reporting guidelines in "Instructions to Authors."ConclusionExisting reporting guidelines have important limitations in content, development, and/or dissemination. Important details are routinely missing from trial publications; most leading journals in social and behavioural sciences do not ask authors to follow reporting standards. Findings demonstrate a need to develop a CONSORT extension with updated standards for social and psychological intervention trials.

Dataset Information

Quality of reporting of complex healthcare interventions and applicability of the CReDECI list - a survey of publications indexed in PubMed.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Quality of reporting of complex healthcare interventions and applicability of the CReDECI list - a survey of publications indexed in PubMed.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets