The use of reporting guidelines as an educational intervention for teaching research methods and writing

Abstract

Poor reporting of biomedical research has been a persistent and prominent problem throughout modern history. In many different scientific fields, study results have failed to be reproduced and replicated, oftentimes due to incomplete reporting. When information is missing about how a study was designed, conducted, and analyzed, researchers and clinicians are unable to use results to inform health policies and clinical care. To address this issue, reporting guidelines (RG) were created to establish the minimum criteria that authors need to disclose when discussing study results. A reporting guideline for observational studies was published in 2007 which contains 22-items and guidance for authors of case-control, cohort, and cross-sectional studies. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement is supported by many journals and editorial groups, however, at quite low rates. Lack of awareness is widespread and it is unclear what authors think about STROBE. Furthermore, while STROBE been expanded upon for specific fields and methodologies through the creation of “extensions” – little is known about perceptions towards these documents, their content, or usefulness. In order to better implement STROBE and reporting guidelines like it, research is needed into current processes by authors and how their environment affects their work. The work in this dissertation was guided by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) knowledge translation strategy. This approach looks at the 1) evidence, 2) context, and 3) facilitators in order to implement research successfully. Transforming STROBE from simply a reporting guideline into an educational tool required investigation into these three facets. I began by investigating the content in the STROBE extensions to identify strengths and weaknesses in the checklist items. Results found that the content in the STROBE extensions is problematic as it is sometimes redundant – potentially indicating a poor understanding of the concepts within STROBE or issues with its content. Concurrently, I determined the endorsement rates of the extensions to establish the publishing context in which authors are working. I found that journals are largely not endorsing STROBE and the language that they use is ambiguous and vague. The STROBE extensions are endorsed at extremely low rates or not at all. Next, I assessed researcher’s awareness of, experiences with, and attitudes towards the STROBE checklist. This established the facilitators, timing and motivators (context), and perceptions (evidence) of use. The second project found that there is a large disagreement regarding the level of specificity desired in STROBE and its usefulness. Generally, authors are not opposed to using it but there is often no strong motivating force. Their coauthors do not use it and journals are not requiring it. Authors also hold some internal views that are detrimental to the promotion of STROBE, such as the over-confidence in one’s abilities. The work from the first two projects provided the content and support for an educational intervention that is integrated within the writing process, accessible by a worldwide audience, and open-source and editable. It is built using R and is open-source and editable via GitHub and the repository is publicly launched alongside this dissertation.