Cargando…
Reporting Guidelines for Community-Based Participatory Research Did Not Improve the Reporting Quality of Published Studies: A Systematic Review of Studies on Smoking Cessation
The objective of this study was to assess the impact of a 2010 community-based participatory research (CBPR) reporting guideline on the quality of reporting a CBPR on smoking cessation. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, and Cumu...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7312250/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32486372 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113898 |
_version_ | 1783549688313544704 |
---|---|
author | Kato, Daisuke Kataoka, Yuki Suwangto, Erfen Gustiawan Kaneko, Makoto Wakabayashi, Hideki Son, Daisuke Kawachi, Ichiro |
author_facet | Kato, Daisuke Kataoka, Yuki Suwangto, Erfen Gustiawan Kaneko, Makoto Wakabayashi, Hideki Son, Daisuke Kawachi, Ichiro |
author_sort | Kato, Daisuke |
collection | PubMed |
description | The objective of this study was to assess the impact of a 2010 community-based participatory research (CBPR) reporting guideline on the quality of reporting a CBPR on smoking cessation. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases and included articles published up to December 2019 (PROSPERO: CRD42019111668). We assessed reporting quality using the 13-item checklist. Of the 80 articles identified, 42 (53%) were published after 2010. The overall reporting quality before and after 2010 was poor and did not differ significantly (mean difference: 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.21 to 1.53). The total reporting scores of the studies did not differ significantly according to the effect size of the intervention (beta coefficient: −2.86, 95% CI: −5.77 to 0.04). This study demonstrates the need to improve the quality of reporting CBPRs. We recommend that journal editors endorse the CBPR reporting guideline to encourage its use by more researchers. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7312250 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73122502020-06-26 Reporting Guidelines for Community-Based Participatory Research Did Not Improve the Reporting Quality of Published Studies: A Systematic Review of Studies on Smoking Cessation Kato, Daisuke Kataoka, Yuki Suwangto, Erfen Gustiawan Kaneko, Makoto Wakabayashi, Hideki Son, Daisuke Kawachi, Ichiro Int J Environ Res Public Health Review The objective of this study was to assess the impact of a 2010 community-based participatory research (CBPR) reporting guideline on the quality of reporting a CBPR on smoking cessation. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases and included articles published up to December 2019 (PROSPERO: CRD42019111668). We assessed reporting quality using the 13-item checklist. Of the 80 articles identified, 42 (53%) were published after 2010. The overall reporting quality before and after 2010 was poor and did not differ significantly (mean difference: 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.21 to 1.53). The total reporting scores of the studies did not differ significantly according to the effect size of the intervention (beta coefficient: −2.86, 95% CI: −5.77 to 0.04). This study demonstrates the need to improve the quality of reporting CBPRs. We recommend that journal editors endorse the CBPR reporting guideline to encourage its use by more researchers. MDPI 2020-05-31 2020-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7312250/ /pubmed/32486372 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113898 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Kato, Daisuke Kataoka, Yuki Suwangto, Erfen Gustiawan Kaneko, Makoto Wakabayashi, Hideki Son, Daisuke Kawachi, Ichiro Reporting Guidelines for Community-Based Participatory Research Did Not Improve the Reporting Quality of Published Studies: A Systematic Review of Studies on Smoking Cessation |
title | Reporting Guidelines for Community-Based Participatory Research Did Not Improve the Reporting Quality of Published Studies: A Systematic Review of Studies on Smoking Cessation |
title_full | Reporting Guidelines for Community-Based Participatory Research Did Not Improve the Reporting Quality of Published Studies: A Systematic Review of Studies on Smoking Cessation |
title_fullStr | Reporting Guidelines for Community-Based Participatory Research Did Not Improve the Reporting Quality of Published Studies: A Systematic Review of Studies on Smoking Cessation |
title_full_unstemmed | Reporting Guidelines for Community-Based Participatory Research Did Not Improve the Reporting Quality of Published Studies: A Systematic Review of Studies on Smoking Cessation |
title_short | Reporting Guidelines for Community-Based Participatory Research Did Not Improve the Reporting Quality of Published Studies: A Systematic Review of Studies on Smoking Cessation |
title_sort | reporting guidelines for community-based participatory research did not improve the reporting quality of published studies: a systematic review of studies on smoking cessation |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7312250/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32486372 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113898 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT katodaisuke reportingguidelinesforcommunitybasedparticipatoryresearchdidnotimprovethereportingqualityofpublishedstudiesasystematicreviewofstudiesonsmokingcessation AT kataokayuki reportingguidelinesforcommunitybasedparticipatoryresearchdidnotimprovethereportingqualityofpublishedstudiesasystematicreviewofstudiesonsmokingcessation AT suwangtoerfengustiawan reportingguidelinesforcommunitybasedparticipatoryresearchdidnotimprovethereportingqualityofpublishedstudiesasystematicreviewofstudiesonsmokingcessation AT kanekomakoto reportingguidelinesforcommunitybasedparticipatoryresearchdidnotimprovethereportingqualityofpublishedstudiesasystematicreviewofstudiesonsmokingcessation AT wakabayashihideki reportingguidelinesforcommunitybasedparticipatoryresearchdidnotimprovethereportingqualityofpublishedstudiesasystematicreviewofstudiesonsmokingcessation AT sondaisuke reportingguidelinesforcommunitybasedparticipatoryresearchdidnotimprovethereportingqualityofpublishedstudiesasystematicreviewofstudiesonsmokingcessation AT kawachiichiro reportingguidelinesforcommunitybasedparticipatoryresearchdidnotimprovethereportingqualityofpublishedstudiesasystematicreviewofstudiesonsmokingcessation |