Ingrid Toews1, Andrew Booth2, Rigmor C Berg3, Simon Lewin4, Claire Glenton3, Heather M Munthe-Kaas3, Jane Noyes5, Sara Schroter6, Joerg J Meerpohl7. 1. Cochrane Germany, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Breisacher Str. 153, 79110 Freiburg, Germany. 2. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield S1 4DA, UK. 3. Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Pilestredet Park 7, N-0176 Oslo, Norway. 4. Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Pilestredet Park 7, N-0176 Oslo, Norway; Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, PO Box 19070, Tygerberg 7505, South Africa. 5. School of Social Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd ll57 2DG, UK. 6. BMJ, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR. 7. Cochrane Germany, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Breisacher Str. 153, 79110 Freiburg, Germany; Cochrane France, Centre de Recherche Épidémiologie et Statistique Sorbonne Paris Cité - U1153, Inserm/Université Paris Descartes, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame, 75181 Paris Cedex 04, France. Electronic address: meerpohl@cochrane.de.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To conceptualise and discuss dissemination bias in qualitative research. RESULTS: It is likely that the mechanisms leading to dissemination bias in quantitative research, including time lag, language, gray literature, and truncation bias also contribute to dissemination bias in qualitative research. These conceptual considerations have informed the development of a research agenda. CONCLUSION: Further exploration of dissemination bias in qualitative research is needed, including the extent of non-dissemination and related dissemination bias, and how to assess dissemination bias within qualitative evidence syntheses. We also need to consider the mechanisms through which dissemination bias in qualitative research could occur to explore approaches for reducing it.
OBJECTIVES: To conceptualise and discuss dissemination bias in qualitative research. RESULTS: It is likely that the mechanisms leading to dissemination bias in quantitative research, including time lag, language, gray literature, and truncation bias also contribute to dissemination bias in qualitative research. These conceptual considerations have informed the development of a research agenda. CONCLUSION: Further exploration of dissemination bias in qualitative research is needed, including the extent of non-dissemination and related dissemination bias, and how to assess dissemination bias within qualitative evidence syntheses. We also need to consider the mechanisms through which dissemination bias in qualitative research could occur to explore approaches for reducing it.
Authors: Katherine B Roland; Darrel H Higa; Carolyn A Leighton; Yuko Mizuno; Julia B DeLuca; Linda J Koenig Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2019-10-09
Authors: Katherine B Roland; Darrel H Higa; Carolyn A Leighton; Yuko Mizuno; Julia B DeLuca; Linda J Koenig Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2020-12-27
Authors: Jane Noyes; Andrew Booth; Simon Lewin; Benedicte Carlsen; Claire Glenton; Christopher J Colvin; Ruth Garside; Meghan A Bohren; Arash Rashidian; Megan Wainwright; Özge Tunςalp; Jacqueline Chandler; Signe Flottorp; Tomas Pantoja; Joseph D Tucker; Heather Munthe-Kaas Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 7.327