Kiersten N Rybakov1, Robert Beckett2, Ian Dilley3, Amy Heck Sheehan4. 1. Purdue University College of Pharmacy, USA. 2. Manchester University College of Pharmacy, Natural and Health Sciences, USA. 3. CT Commercial Products, Eli Lilly and Company, USA. 4. Purdue University College of Pharmacy, Fifth Third Bank Building, 640 Eskenazi Ave, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. Electronic address: hecka@purdue.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Survey research methodology is commonly used in the pharmacy literature and standards have been set forth for quality reporting. A systematic review to assess the reporting quality of survey research has only been completed for general medical literature. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to examine the quality of survey research reporting published in the pharmacy literature and identify reporting areas researchers can focus on for increased transparency in survey research methodology. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of survey research articles published in seven key pharmacy journals in 2016 was conducted using a published 30-item checklist instrument designed for the reporting quality surveys. Each article was evaluated by two independent study investigators and assigned a final score out of 30. RESULTS: Out of 197 articles assessed for eligibility, 105 (53%) used survey research as the primary methodology and were included in the study. The average reporting score was 18.2±3.0 (range 10-25) out of 30, with the highest average scores reported for PharmacoEconomics (22.5), JMCP (20.4) and RSAP (19.8). Checklist items related to the quality of reporting survey research methodology with the highest compliance included: original reference cited for use of existing tools (100%), description of survey population and sample frame (90%); and reporting response rate (90%). Checklist items with low reporting included: psychometric properties for existing tools (14%); reliability and validity for new instruments (11%); analysis of nonresponse bias (8%); definition of complete versus partial responses (8%); methods of handling missing data (19%); and information about how non-respondents differ from respondents (14%). CONCLUSIONS: Survey research published in the pharmacy literature scored moderately on a published instrument designed for systematic appraisal of survey research reporting quality. Several areas for continued improvement exist for survey research reporting quality in the pharmacy literature.
BACKGROUND: Survey research methodology is commonly used in the pharmacy literature and standards have been set forth for quality reporting. A systematic review to assess the reporting quality of survey research has only been completed for general medical literature. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to examine the quality of survey research reporting published in the pharmacy literature and identify reporting areas researchers can focus on for increased transparency in survey research methodology. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of survey research articles published in seven key pharmacy journals in 2016 was conducted using a published 30-item checklist instrument designed for the reporting quality surveys. Each article was evaluated by two independent study investigators and assigned a final score out of 30. RESULTS: Out of 197 articles assessed for eligibility, 105 (53%) used survey research as the primary methodology and were included in the study. The average reporting score was 18.2±3.0 (range 10-25) out of 30, with the highest average scores reported for PharmacoEconomics (22.5), JMCP (20.4) and RSAP (19.8). Checklist items related to the quality of reporting survey research methodology with the highest compliance included: original reference cited for use of existing tools (100%), description of survey population and sample frame (90%); and reporting response rate (90%). Checklist items with low reporting included: psychometric properties for existing tools (14%); reliability and validity for new instruments (11%); analysis of nonresponse bias (8%); definition of complete versus partial responses (8%); methods of handling missing data (19%); and information about how non-respondents differ from respondents (14%). CONCLUSIONS: Survey research published in the pharmacy literature scored moderately on a published instrument designed for systematic appraisal of survey research reporting quality. Several areas for continued improvement exist for survey research reporting quality in the pharmacy literature.
Authors: Akash Sharma; Nguyen Tran Minh Duc; Tai Luu Lam Thang; Nguyen Hai Nam; Sze Jia Ng; Kirellos Said Abbas; Nguyen Tien Huy; Ana Marušić; Christine L Paul; Janette Kwok; Juntra Karbwang; Chiara de Waure; Frances J Drummond; Yoshiyuki Kizawa; Erik Taal; Joeri Vermeulen; Gillian H M Lee; Adam Gyedu; Kien Gia To; Martin L Verra; Évelyne M Jacqz-Aigrain; Wouter K G Leclercq; Simo T Salminen; Cathy Donald Sherbourne; Barbara Mintzes; Sergi Lozano; Ulrich S Tran; Mitsuaki Matsui; Mohammad Karamouzian Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 6.473