Further exploration of dissemination bias in qualitative research required to facilitate assessment within qualitative evidence syntheses

Toews, Ingrid; Berg, Rigmor C.; Lewin, Simon; Glenton, Claire; Munthe‐Kaas, Heather Menzies; Noyes, Jane; Schroter, Sara; Meerpohl, Joerg J

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.010

Cited by 29 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When findings from qualitative research are not spread and, consequently, are not accessible, bias may occur that could, in turn, threaten the quality of the qualitative counterpart of systematic reviewing: the qualitative evidence synthesis (Booth 2017). Dissemination bias in qualitative research has different causes than in quantitative research, but also negative consequences for scientific research and specifically, for the practice of systematic reviews (Toews et al 2017). When your qualitative study is preregistered, interested researchers can nevertheless find your study and ask you to take it out of the file-drawer, which could in turn ensure that qualitative evidence syntheses are more reflective and up to date.…”

Section: Practical Usefulness Of Preregistrations In Qualitative Resementioning

confidence: 99%

Preregistering qualitative research

Haven

Grootel

2019

Accountability in Research

215

173

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The threat to reproducibility and awareness of current rates of research misbehavior sparked initiatives to better academic science. One initiative is preregistration of quantitative research. We investigate whether the preregistration format could also be used to boost the credibility of qualitative research. A crucial distinction underlying preregistration is that between prediction and postdiction. In qualitative research, data are used to decide which way interpretation should move forward, using data to generate hypotheses and new research questions. Qualitative research is thus a real-life example of postdiction research. Some may object to the idea of preregistering qualitative studies because qualitative research generally does not test hypotheses, and because qualitative research design is typically flexible and subjective. We rebut these objections, arguing that making hypotheses explicit is just one feature of preregistration, that flexibility can be tracked using preregistration, and that preregistration would provide a check on subjectivity. We then contextualize preregistrations alongside another initiative to enhance credibility in qualitative research: the confirmability audit. Besides, preregistering qualitative studies is practically useful to combating dissemination bias and could incentivize qualitative researchers to report constantly on their study's development. We conclude with suggested modifications to the Open Science Framework preregistration form to tailor it for qualitative studies.

show abstract

Section: Practical Usefulness Of Preregistrations In Qualitative Resementioning

confidence: 99%

Preregistering qualitative research

Haven

Grootel

2019

Accountability in Research

215

173

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The aims of this paper are to discuss a definition of dissemination bias in qualitative research and consider how and to what extent it might occur, to explain why dissemination bias may be important in relation to the process and findings of qualitative evidence syntheses, to discuss how dissemination bias might impact on assessments of confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses and to outline an agenda for future research. A complementary paper takes a broader look at dissemination bias in qualitative research and potential lessons from available evidence in the quantitative research arena to inform an understanding of the causes and consequences of dissemination bias in qualitative research [ 1 ]. Key definitions for the series are provided in Additional file 1 .…”

Section: Aimsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The survey findings suggest that the proportion of unpublished qualitative studies and individual findings is substantial and comparable to the extent of non-dissemination of studies using quantitative methods. Considerable further research is needed on both the extent of dissemination bias in qualitative research, including partial reporting of research findings, and the factors that affect this––we discuss this research agenda in more detail below and in a complementary paper [ 1 ].…”

Section: What Is the Extent Of Dissemination Bias In Qualitative Resementioning

confidence: 99%

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias

Booth

Lewin²,

Glenton

et al. 2018

Implementation Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach has been developed by the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Working Group. The approach has been developed to support the use of findings from qualitative evidence syntheses in decision-making, including guideline development and policy formulation.CERQual includes four components for assessing how much confidence to place in findings from reviews of qualitative research (also referred to as qualitative evidence syntheses): (1) methodological limitations, (2) coherence, (3) adequacy of data and (4) relevance. This paper is part of a series providing guidance on how to apply CERQual and focuses on a probable fifth component, dissemination bias. Given its exploratory nature, we are not yet able to provide guidance on applying this potential component of the CERQual approach. Instead, we focus on how dissemination bias might be conceptualised in the context of qualitative research and the potential impact dissemination bias might have on an overall assessment of confidence in a review finding. We also set out a proposed research agenda in this area.MethodsWe developed this paper by gathering feedback from relevant research communities, searching MEDLINE and Web of Science to identify and characterise the existing literature discussing or assessing dissemination bias in qualitative research and its wider implications, developing consensus through project group meetings, and conducting an online survey of the extent, awareness and perceptions of dissemination bias in qualitative research.ResultsWe have defined dissemination bias in qualitative research as a systematic distortion of the phenomenon of interest due to selective dissemination of studies or individual study findings. Dissemination bias is important for qualitative evidence syntheses as the selective dissemination of qualitative studies and/or study findings may distort our understanding of the phenomena that these syntheses aim to explore and thereby undermine our confidence in these findings.Dissemination bias has been extensively examined in the context of randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews of such studies. The effects of potential dissemination bias are formally considered, as publication bias, within the GRADE approach. However, the issue has received almost no attention in the context of qualitative research. Because of very limited understanding of dissemination bias and its potential impact on review findings in the context of qualitative evidence syntheses, this component is currently not included in the GRADE-CERQual approach.ConclusionsFurther research is needed to establish the extent and impacts of dissemination bias in qualitative research and the extent to which dissemination bias needs to be taken into account when we assess how much confidence we have in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-06...

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, all studies reported that data saturation was achieved. We cannot rule out dissemination bias [ 46 ]. In all, 4 of 19 studies included were from the same group of authors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adherence to medication in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review of qualitative research

Nielsen

Juhl

Feldt‐Rasmussen

et al. 2017

Clinical Kidney Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-adherence to multipharmacological treatment increases the risk of morbidity, mortality and hospitalization. We know little about the perspective of patients with chronic kidney disease regarding factors influencing medicine taking. This study aimed to synthesize findings from qualitative studies of patients’ experiences of factors that facilitate and hinder adherence to medication. A systematic review of qualitative studies adhering to the Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ) framework. Systematic searches were conducted in several databases. We used thematic synthesis and the Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) approach to assess the confidence of the evidence. Nineteen studies involving 381 patients with chronic kidney disease were included. We identified three analytical themes; logistics, benchmarking the need for medication; and the quality of the patient-physician relationship, with seven descriptive sub-themes as factors influencing patients' adherence to medications. Helping patients to map their everyday activities and motivating them to associate medications with everyday activities may facilitate adherence to medications. Addressing patient beliefs about medications, supporting patients in coping with side effects of medications and eliciting patients’ wishes for involvement in treatment decisions may also facilitate adherence. Barriers to adherence were the costs of buying medications, and lacking understanding of the indications and effects of medications. The findings in this synthesis resonate with previous research and extend the known literature by synthesizing and formally assessing confidence in the evidence.

show abstract

Further exploration of dissemination bias in qualitative research required to facilitate assessment within qualitative evidence syntheses

Cited by 29 publications

References 40 publications

Preregistering qualitative research

Preregistering qualitative research

Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings–paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias

Adherence to medication in patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review of qualitative research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About