Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey
Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certai...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2016-08, Vol.11 (8), p.e0159290-e0159290 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | e0159290 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 8 |
| container_start_page | e0159290 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 11 |
| creator | Toews, Ingrid Glenton, Claire Lewin, Simon Berg, Rigmor C Noyes, Jane Booth, Andrew Marusic, Ana Malicki, Mario Munthe-Kaas, Heather M Meerpohl, Joerg J |
| description | Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention.
A survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling.
1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers "(strongly) agreed" that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care.
The proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0159290 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_1808601513</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A471019083</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_05b7aadba8d34aa48204516ded9e20dd</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A471019083</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c748t-96d4184fe1bb4fa288fe3c2aedce6e369961bec549ed97ef76ac6833acafa8973</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk99v0zAQxyMEYmPwHyCINAmBRIsdp47NA1IZBSpNGmzAq3V1Lq2r1C52Urb_HmdNx4r2MOXB0flzP_y9uyR5TsmQsoK-W7rWW6iHa2dxSOhIZpI8SA6pZNmAZ4Q9vPV_kDwJYUnIiAnOHycHWZGLgkhymODkskHbvE3Hf8CjxRBSsGX6Db3GdWOcTV2VfjIh4MpYuDZ8NBBSY9PvLdSmibYNpucYELxevE_HNp1crmvntxcXrd_g1dPkUQV1wGf9eZT8_Dz5cfJ1cHr2ZXoyPh3oWFAzkLzMqcgrpLNZXkEmRIVMZ4ClRo6MS8npDPUol1jKAquCg-aCMdBQgZAFO0pebuPGAoLqFQqKCiJ4lIiySEy3ROlgqdberMBfKQdGXRucnyvwjdE1KjKaFQDlDETJcoBcZCQfUV7G3JiRsoyxPvTZ2tmqq9E2Huq9oPs31izU3G1ULouMkSwGeLENoL0JjbHKRtkUJYQVShZyFIHXfQbvfrcYGrUyQWNdg0XXdg-jVEhKiuweKJGccMo69Pg_9G6lemoOUQxjKxffoLugapwXlFBJREcN76DiV8aB0XE0KxPtew5v9hwi0-BlM4c2BDW9OL8_e_Zrn311i10g1M0iuLrtRjbsg_lOdBeCx-qmYZSobrN2aqhus1S_Wf96tW3pjdNuldhf6C4dUQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1808601513</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey</title><source>PubMed Central Free</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Toews, Ingrid ; Glenton, Claire ; Lewin, Simon ; Berg, Rigmor C ; Noyes, Jane ; Booth, Andrew ; Marusic, Ana ; Malicki, Mario ; Munthe-Kaas, Heather M ; Meerpohl, Joerg J</creator><contributor>Fanelli, Daniele</contributor><creatorcontrib>Toews, Ingrid ; Glenton, Claire ; Lewin, Simon ; Berg, Rigmor C ; Noyes, Jane ; Booth, Andrew ; Marusic, Ana ; Malicki, Mario ; Munthe-Kaas, Heather M ; Meerpohl, Joerg J ; Fanelli, Daniele</creatorcontrib><description>Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention.
A survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling.
1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers "(strongly) agreed" that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care.
The proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159290</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27487090</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Adult ; Bias ; Biblioteks- og informasjonsvitenskap: 320 ; Biology and Life Sciences ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Decision Making ; Editorial Policies ; Female ; Health care ; Health policy ; Helsefag: 800 ; Humans ; Male ; Medical care discrimination ; Medical research ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Medisinske Fag: 700 ; Middle Aged ; Peer Review, Research - standards ; Publication Bias - statistics & numerical data ; Qualitative analysis ; Qualitative reasoning ; Qualitative Research ; Quantitative research ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Research Personnel - psychology ; Reviews ; Samfunnsvitenskap: 200 ; Science Policy ; Social Sciences ; Studies ; Surveys ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; VDP</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2016-08, Vol.11 (8), p.e0159290-e0159290</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2016 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2016 Toews et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</rights><rights>2016 Toews et al 2016 Toews et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c748t-96d4184fe1bb4fa288fe3c2aedce6e369961bec549ed97ef76ac6833acafa8973</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c748t-96d4184fe1bb4fa288fe3c2aedce6e369961bec549ed97ef76ac6833acafa8973</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4972302/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4972302/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,728,781,785,865,886,2103,2929,23870,26571,27928,27929,53795,53797</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27487090$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Fanelli, Daniele</contributor><creatorcontrib>Toews, Ingrid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glenton, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewin, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berg, Rigmor C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noyes, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Booth, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marusic, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malicki, Mario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Munthe-Kaas, Heather M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meerpohl, Joerg J</creatorcontrib><title>Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention.
A survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling.
1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers "(strongly) agreed" that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care.
The proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biblioteks- og informasjonsvitenskap: 320</subject><subject>Biology and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Editorial Policies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health policy</subject><subject>Helsefag: 800</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical care discrimination</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Medisinske Fag: 700</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Peer Review, Research - standards</subject><subject>Publication Bias - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Qualitative analysis</subject><subject>Qualitative reasoning</subject><subject>Qualitative Research</subject><subject>Quantitative research</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Research Personnel - psychology</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Samfunnsvitenskap: 200</subject><subject>Science Policy</subject><subject>Social Sciences</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surveys</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>VDP</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>3HK</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk99v0zAQxyMEYmPwHyCINAmBRIsdp47NA1IZBSpNGmzAq3V1Lq2r1C52Urb_HmdNx4r2MOXB0flzP_y9uyR5TsmQsoK-W7rWW6iHa2dxSOhIZpI8SA6pZNmAZ4Q9vPV_kDwJYUnIiAnOHycHWZGLgkhymODkskHbvE3Hf8CjxRBSsGX6Db3GdWOcTV2VfjIh4MpYuDZ8NBBSY9PvLdSmibYNpucYELxevE_HNp1crmvntxcXrd_g1dPkUQV1wGf9eZT8_Dz5cfJ1cHr2ZXoyPh3oWFAzkLzMqcgrpLNZXkEmRIVMZ4ClRo6MS8npDPUol1jKAquCg-aCMdBQgZAFO0pebuPGAoLqFQqKCiJ4lIiySEy3ROlgqdberMBfKQdGXRucnyvwjdE1KjKaFQDlDETJcoBcZCQfUV7G3JiRsoyxPvTZ2tmqq9E2Huq9oPs31izU3G1ULouMkSwGeLENoL0JjbHKRtkUJYQVShZyFIHXfQbvfrcYGrUyQWNdg0XXdg-jVEhKiuweKJGccMo69Pg_9G6lemoOUQxjKxffoLugapwXlFBJREcN76DiV8aB0XE0KxPtew5v9hwi0-BlM4c2BDW9OL8_e_Zrn311i10g1M0iuLrtRjbsg_lOdBeCx-qmYZSobrN2aqhus1S_Wf96tW3pjdNuldhf6C4dUQ</recordid><startdate>20160803</startdate><enddate>20160803</enddate><creator>Toews, Ingrid</creator><creator>Glenton, Claire</creator><creator>Lewin, Simon</creator><creator>Berg, Rigmor C</creator><creator>Noyes, Jane</creator><creator>Booth, Andrew</creator><creator>Marusic, Ana</creator><creator>Malicki, Mario</creator><creator>Munthe-Kaas, Heather M</creator><creator>Meerpohl, Joerg J</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>3HK</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160803</creationdate><title>Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey</title><author>Toews, Ingrid ; Glenton, Claire ; Lewin, Simon ; Berg, Rigmor C ; Noyes, Jane ; Booth, Andrew ; Marusic, Ana ; Malicki, Mario ; Munthe-Kaas, Heather M ; Meerpohl, Joerg J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c748t-96d4184fe1bb4fa288fe3c2aedce6e369961bec549ed97ef76ac6833acafa8973</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biblioteks- og informasjonsvitenskap: 320</topic><topic>Biology and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Editorial Policies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health policy</topic><topic>Helsefag: 800</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical care discrimination</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Medisinske Fag: 700</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Peer Review, Research - standards</topic><topic>Publication Bias - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Qualitative analysis</topic><topic>Qualitative reasoning</topic><topic>Qualitative Research</topic><topic>Quantitative research</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Research Personnel - psychology</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Samfunnsvitenskap: 200</topic><topic>Science Policy</topic><topic>Social Sciences</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surveys</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>VDP</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Toews, Ingrid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glenton, Claire</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lewin, Simon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Berg, Rigmor C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Noyes, Jane</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Booth, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marusic, Ana</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malicki, Mario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Munthe-Kaas, Heather M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Meerpohl, Joerg J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Access via ProQuest (Open Access)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Toews, Ingrid</au><au>Glenton, Claire</au><au>Lewin, Simon</au><au>Berg, Rigmor C</au><au>Noyes, Jane</au><au>Booth, Andrew</au><au>Marusic, Ana</au><au>Malicki, Mario</au><au>Munthe-Kaas, Heather M</au><au>Meerpohl, Joerg J</au><au>Fanelli, Daniele</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2016-08-03</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>e0159290</spage><epage>e0159290</epage><pages>e0159290-e0159290</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention.
A survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling.
1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers "(strongly) agreed" that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care.
The proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>27487090</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0159290</doi><tpages>e0159290</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2016-08, Vol.11 (8), p.e0159290-e0159290 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_1808601513 |
| source | PubMed Central Free; MEDLINE; NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS) Journals Open Access; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry |
| subjects | Adult Bias Biblioteks- og informasjonsvitenskap: 320 Biology and Life Sciences Cross-Sectional Studies Decision Making Editorial Policies Female Health care Health policy Helsefag: 800 Humans Male Medical care discrimination Medical research Medicine and Health Sciences Medisinske Fag: 700 Middle Aged Peer Review, Research - standards Publication Bias - statistics & numerical data Qualitative analysis Qualitative reasoning Qualitative Research Quantitative research Research and Analysis Methods Research Personnel - psychology Reviews Samfunnsvitenskap: 200 Science Policy Social Sciences Studies Surveys Surveys and Questionnaires VDP |
| title | Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T09%3A01%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Extent,%20Awareness%20and%20Perception%20of%20Dissemination%20Bias%20in%20Qualitative%20Research:%20An%20Explorative%20Survey&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Toews,%20Ingrid&rft.date=2016-08-03&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=e0159290&rft.epage=e0159290&rft.pages=e0159290-e0159290&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0159290&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA471019083%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1808601513&rft_id=info:pmid/27487090&rft_galeid=A471019083&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_05b7aadba8d34aa48204516ded9e20dd&rfr_iscdi=true |