Reporting Guidelines for Survey Research: An Analysis of Published Guidance and Reporting Practices

English version České info

Background:
Research needs to be reported transparently so readers can critically assess the strengths and weaknesses of the design, conduct, and analysis of studies. Reporting guidelines have been developed to inform reporting for a variety of study designs. The objective of this study was to identify whether there is a need to develop a reporting guideline for survey research.

Methods and Findings:
We conducted a three-part project: (1) a systematic review of the literature (including “Instructions to Authors” from the top five journals of 33 medical specialties and top 15 general and internal medicine journals) to identify guidance for reporting survey research; (2) a systematic review of evidence on the quality of reporting of surveys; and (3) a review of reporting of key quality criteria for survey research in 117 recently published reports of self-administered surveys. Fewer than 7% of medical journals (n = 165) provided guidance to authors on survey research despite a majority having published survey-based studies in recent years. We identified four published checklists for conducting or reporting survey research, none of which were validated. We identified eight previous reviews of survey reporting quality, which focused on issues of non-response and accessibility of questionnaires. Our own review of 117 published survey studies revealed that many items were poorly reported: few studies provided the survey or core questions (35%), reported the validity or reliability of the instrument (19%), defined the response rate (25%), discussed the representativeness of the sample (11%), or identified how missing data were handled (11%).

Conclusions:
There is limited guidance and no consensus regarding the optimal reporting of survey research. The majority of key reporting criteria are poorly reported in peer-reviewed survey research articles. Our findings highlight the need for clear and consistent reporting guidelines specific to survey research.

: Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Vyšlo v časopise: Reporting Guidelines for Survey Research: An Analysis of Published Guidance and Reporting Practices. PLoS Med 8(8): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001069
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001069

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. GrovesRMFowlerFJCouperMPLepkowskiJMSingerE 2004 Survey Methodology. Hoboken (New Jersey) John Wiley & Sons, Inc

2. AdayLACorneliusLJ 2006 Designing and Conducting Health Surveys. Hoboken (New Jersey) John Wiley & Sons, Inc

3. McCollEJacobyAThomasLSoutterJBamfordC 2001 Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients. Health Technol Assess 5 1 256

4. EdwardsP 2010 Questionnaires in clinical trials: guidelines for optimal design and administration. Trials 11 2

5. SimeraIMoherDHoeyJSchulzKFAltmanDG 2009 The EQUATOR Network and reporting guidelines: Helping to achieve high standards in reporting health research studies. Maturitas 63 4 6

6. EQUATOR Network Introduction to Reporting Guidelines. Available: http://www.equator-network.org/resource-centre/library-of-health-research-reporting/reporting-guidelines/#what. Accessed 23 November 2009

7. MoherDSchulzKFSimeraIAltmanDG 2010 Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 7 e1000217 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217

8. SmidtNRutjesAWvan der WindtDAOsteloRWBossuytPM 2006 The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: has it improved? Neurology 67 792 797

9. PlintACMoherDMorrisonASchulzKAltmanDG 2006 Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review. Med J Aust 185 263 267

10. SmithBALeeHJLeeJHChoiMJonesDE 2008 Quality of reporting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the nursing literature: application of the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT). Nurs Outlook 56 31 37

11. PradySLRichmondSJMortonVMMacphersonH 2008 A systematic evaluation of the impact of STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations on quality of reporting for acupuncture trials. PLoS ONE 3 e1577 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001577

12. AltmanDG 2005 Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors. BMJ 330 1056 1057

13. KelleyKClarkBBrownVSitziaJ 2003 Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care 15 261 266

14. BurnsKEDuffettMKhoMEMeadeMEAdhikariNK 2008 A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians. CMAJ 179 245 252

15. DraugalisJRCoonsSJPlazaCM 2008 Best practices for survey research reports: a synopsis for authors and reviewers. Am J Pharm Educ 72 11

16. EysenbachG 2004 Improving the quality of Web surveys: the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 6 e34

17. HustonP 1996 Reporting on surveys: information for authors and peer reviewers. CMAJ 154 1695 1704

18. AAPOR Home page of the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). [no date listed] Available: http://www.aapor.org. Accessed 20 January 2009

19. BadgerFWerrettJ 2005 Room for improvement? Reporting response rates and recruitment in nursing research in the past decade. J Adv Nurs 51 502 510

20. AschDAJedrziewskiMKChristakisNA 1007 Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 50 1129 1136

21. CummingsSMSavitzLAKonradTR 2001 Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires. Health Serv Res 35 1347 1355

22. JohnsonTOwensL 2003 Survey Response Rate Reporting in the Professional Literature. Available: http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2003/Files/JSM2003-000638.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2011

23. SmithTW 2002 Reporting Survey Nonresponse in Academic Journals. Int J Public Opin Res 14 469 474

24. WernerSPraxedesMKimH 2007 The reporting of nonresponse analyses in survey research. Organizational Research Methods 10 287 295

25. SchillingLMKozakKLundahlKDellavalleRP 2006 Inaccessible novel questionnaires in published medical research: hidden methods, hidden costs. Am J Epidemiol 164 1141 1144

26. RosenTOlsenJ 2006 Invited commentary: the art of making questionnaires better. Am J Epidemiol 164 1145 1149

27. DillmanDA 2007 Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Hoboken (New Jersey) John Wiley & Sons, Inc

28. CoonsSJ 2007 Responses to survey research: transparency and representativeness are key. Clin ther 29 466 468

29. FinchamJE 2008 Response rates and responsiveness for surveys, standards, and the Journal. Am J Pharm Educ 72 43

30. [No author listed] 1999 Editor's Preface. A word about manuscripts. CMAJ 161 5

31. CookJVDickinsonHOEcclesMP 2009 Response rates in postal surveys of healthcare professionals between 1996 and 2005: an observational study. BMC Health Serv Res 9 160

32. NarahariSRRyanTJAggithayaMGBoseKSPrasannaKS 2008 Evidence-based approaches for the Ayurvedic traditional herbal formulations: toward an Ayurvedic CONSORT model. J Altern Complement Med 14 769 776