Use of guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations in behavioral intervention preliminary studies and associations with reporting comprehensiveness: a scoping bibliometric review
Abstract Background Guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations (GCFRs) related to preliminary studies serve as essential resources to assist behavioral intervention researchers in reporting findings from preliminary studies, but their impact on preliminary study reporting comprehensiven...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2023-09-01
|
| Series: | Pilot and Feasibility Studies |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-023-01389-w |
| _version_ | 1797453876393148416 |
|---|---|
| author | Christopher D. Pfledderer Lauren von Klinggraeff Sarah Burkart Alexsandra da Silva Bandeira Bridget Armstrong R. Glenn Weaver Elizabeth L. Adams Michael W. Beets |
| author_facet | Christopher D. Pfledderer Lauren von Klinggraeff Sarah Burkart Alexsandra da Silva Bandeira Bridget Armstrong R. Glenn Weaver Elizabeth L. Adams Michael W. Beets |
| author_sort | Christopher D. Pfledderer |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Background Guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations (GCFRs) related to preliminary studies serve as essential resources to assist behavioral intervention researchers in reporting findings from preliminary studies, but their impact on preliminary study reporting comprehensiveness is unknown. The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping bibliometric review of recently published preliminary behavioral-focused intervention studies to (1) examine the prevalence of GCFR usage and (2) determine the associations between GCFR usage and reporting feasibility-related characteristics. Methods A systematic search was conducted for preliminary studies of behavioral-focused interventions published between 2018 and 2020. Studies were limited to the top 25 journals publishing behavioral-focused interventions, text mined to identify usage of GCFRs, and categorized as either not citing GCFRs or citing ≥ 2 GCFRs (Citers). A random sample of non-Citers was text mined to identify studies which cited other preliminary studies that cited GCFRs (Indirect Citers) and those that did not (Never Citers). The presence/absence of feasibility-related characteristics was compared between Citers, Indirect Citers, and Never Citers via univariate logistic regression. Results Studies (n = 4143) were identified, and 1316 were text mined to identify GCFR usage (n = 167 Citers). A random sample of 200 studies not citing a GCFR were selected and categorized into Indirect Citers (n = 71) and Never Citers (n = 129). Compared to Never Citers, Citers had higher odds of reporting retention, acceptability, adverse events, compliance, cost, data collection feasibility, and treatment fidelity (OR range = 2.62–14.15, p < 0.005). Citers also had higher odds of mentioning feasibility in purpose statements, providing progression criteria, framing feasibility as the primary outcome, and mentioning feasibility in conclusions (OR range = 6.31–17.04, p < 0.005) and lower odds of mentioning efficacy in purpose statements, testing for efficacy, mentioning efficacy in conclusions, and suggesting future testing (ORrange = 0.13–0.54, p < 0.05). Indirect Citers had higher odds of reporting acceptability and treatment fidelity (OR range = 2.12–2.39, p < 0.05) but lower odds of testing for efficacy (OR = 0.36, p < 0.05) compared to Never Citers. Conclusion The citation of GCFRs is associated with greater reporting of feasibility-related characteristics in preliminary studies of behavioral-focused interventions. Researchers are encouraged to use and cite literature that provides guidance on design, implementation, analysis, and reporting to improve the comprehensiveness of reporting for preliminary studies. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T15:29:12Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-517f32aa44814dd5aa1718562c210148 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2055-5784 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T15:29:12Z |
| publishDate | 2023-09-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Pilot and Feasibility Studies |
| spelling | doaj.art-517f32aa44814dd5aa1718562c2101482023-11-26T12:22:31ZengBMCPilot and Feasibility Studies2055-57842023-09-019111310.1186/s40814-023-01389-wUse of guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations in behavioral intervention preliminary studies and associations with reporting comprehensiveness: a scoping bibliometric reviewChristopher D. Pfledderer0Lauren von Klinggraeff1Sarah Burkart2Alexsandra da Silva Bandeira3Bridget Armstrong4R. Glenn Weaver5Elizabeth L. Adams6Michael W. Beets7Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health Austin CampusArnold School of Public Health, University of South CarolinaArnold School of Public Health, University of South CarolinaArnold School of Public Health, University of South CarolinaArnold School of Public Health, University of South CarolinaArnold School of Public Health, University of South CarolinaArnold School of Public Health, University of South CarolinaArnold School of Public Health, University of South CarolinaAbstract Background Guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations (GCFRs) related to preliminary studies serve as essential resources to assist behavioral intervention researchers in reporting findings from preliminary studies, but their impact on preliminary study reporting comprehensiveness is unknown. The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping bibliometric review of recently published preliminary behavioral-focused intervention studies to (1) examine the prevalence of GCFR usage and (2) determine the associations between GCFR usage and reporting feasibility-related characteristics. Methods A systematic search was conducted for preliminary studies of behavioral-focused interventions published between 2018 and 2020. Studies were limited to the top 25 journals publishing behavioral-focused interventions, text mined to identify usage of GCFRs, and categorized as either not citing GCFRs or citing ≥ 2 GCFRs (Citers). A random sample of non-Citers was text mined to identify studies which cited other preliminary studies that cited GCFRs (Indirect Citers) and those that did not (Never Citers). The presence/absence of feasibility-related characteristics was compared between Citers, Indirect Citers, and Never Citers via univariate logistic regression. Results Studies (n = 4143) were identified, and 1316 were text mined to identify GCFR usage (n = 167 Citers). A random sample of 200 studies not citing a GCFR were selected and categorized into Indirect Citers (n = 71) and Never Citers (n = 129). Compared to Never Citers, Citers had higher odds of reporting retention, acceptability, adverse events, compliance, cost, data collection feasibility, and treatment fidelity (OR range = 2.62–14.15, p < 0.005). Citers also had higher odds of mentioning feasibility in purpose statements, providing progression criteria, framing feasibility as the primary outcome, and mentioning feasibility in conclusions (OR range = 6.31–17.04, p < 0.005) and lower odds of mentioning efficacy in purpose statements, testing for efficacy, mentioning efficacy in conclusions, and suggesting future testing (ORrange = 0.13–0.54, p < 0.05). Indirect Citers had higher odds of reporting acceptability and treatment fidelity (OR range = 2.12–2.39, p < 0.05) but lower odds of testing for efficacy (OR = 0.36, p < 0.05) compared to Never Citers. Conclusion The citation of GCFRs is associated with greater reporting of feasibility-related characteristics in preliminary studies of behavioral-focused interventions. Researchers are encouraged to use and cite literature that provides guidance on design, implementation, analysis, and reporting to improve the comprehensiveness of reporting for preliminary studies.https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-023-01389-wPreliminary studiesPilotFeasibilityFrameworkReviewReporting quality |
| spellingShingle | Christopher D. Pfledderer Lauren von Klinggraeff Sarah Burkart Alexsandra da Silva Bandeira Bridget Armstrong R. Glenn Weaver Elizabeth L. Adams Michael W. Beets Use of guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations in behavioral intervention preliminary studies and associations with reporting comprehensiveness: a scoping bibliometric review Pilot and Feasibility Studies Preliminary studies Pilot Feasibility Framework Review Reporting quality |
| title | Use of guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations in behavioral intervention preliminary studies and associations with reporting comprehensiveness: a scoping bibliometric review |
| title_full | Use of guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations in behavioral intervention preliminary studies and associations with reporting comprehensiveness: a scoping bibliometric review |
| title_fullStr | Use of guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations in behavioral intervention preliminary studies and associations with reporting comprehensiveness: a scoping bibliometric review |
| title_full_unstemmed | Use of guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations in behavioral intervention preliminary studies and associations with reporting comprehensiveness: a scoping bibliometric review |
| title_short | Use of guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations in behavioral intervention preliminary studies and associations with reporting comprehensiveness: a scoping bibliometric review |
| title_sort | use of guidelines checklists frameworks and recommendations in behavioral intervention preliminary studies and associations with reporting comprehensiveness a scoping bibliometric review |
| topic | Preliminary studies Pilot Feasibility Framework Review Reporting quality |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-023-01389-w |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT christopherdpfledderer useofguidelineschecklistsframeworksandrecommendationsinbehavioralinterventionpreliminarystudiesandassociationswithreportingcomprehensivenessascopingbibliometricreview AT laurenvonklinggraeff useofguidelineschecklistsframeworksandrecommendationsinbehavioralinterventionpreliminarystudiesandassociationswithreportingcomprehensivenessascopingbibliometricreview AT sarahburkart useofguidelineschecklistsframeworksandrecommendationsinbehavioralinterventionpreliminarystudiesandassociationswithreportingcomprehensivenessascopingbibliometricreview AT alexsandradasilvabandeira useofguidelineschecklistsframeworksandrecommendationsinbehavioralinterventionpreliminarystudiesandassociationswithreportingcomprehensivenessascopingbibliometricreview AT bridgetarmstrong useofguidelineschecklistsframeworksandrecommendationsinbehavioralinterventionpreliminarystudiesandassociationswithreportingcomprehensivenessascopingbibliometricreview AT rglennweaver useofguidelineschecklistsframeworksandrecommendationsinbehavioralinterventionpreliminarystudiesandassociationswithreportingcomprehensivenessascopingbibliometricreview AT elizabethladams useofguidelineschecklistsframeworksandrecommendationsinbehavioralinterventionpreliminarystudiesandassociationswithreportingcomprehensivenessascopingbibliometricreview AT michaelwbeets useofguidelineschecklistsframeworksandrecommendationsinbehavioralinterventionpreliminarystudiesandassociationswithreportingcomprehensivenessascopingbibliometricreview |