Reporting study results in primary health care: the CRISP guidelines

William R. Phillips,Elizabeth A. Sturgiss,Sally Kendall,Mehmet Akman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s1463423624000458

2024-10-18

Primary Health Care Research & Development

Abstract://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn%3Acambridge.org%3Aid%3Aarticle%3AS1463423624000458/resource/name/firstPage-pdf-S1463423624000458a.jpg

primary health care

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) checklist – the first research reporting guideline made by and for primary care

Elizabeth A. Sturgiss,William R. Phillips

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/py24115

2024-09-03

Australian Journal of Primary Health

Abstract:Here, we present the Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) checklist, the first research reporting guide developed by and for the primary care research community.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,primary health care,health policy & services
The 'Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care' (CRISP) statement in the European Journal of General Practice

Jelle Stoffers,Jako Burgers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2024.2370117

2024-09-11

European Journal of General Practice

Abstract:In November 2023, the European Journal of General Practice (EJGP) editorial team received an email from William R. Phillips on behalf of the author group of the CRISP (Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care) statement, published in the November/December 2023 issue of the Annals of Family Medicine [ Citation 1 ]. The authors requested EJGP to consider (a) including the statement in its 'Instructions for Authors' and (b) addressing the CRISP statement in an editorial.

medicine, general & internal,primary health care
Exploring a novel method for optimising the implementation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool into primary care: a qualitative study

Shakira Milton,Jon D Emery,Jane Rinaldi,Joanne Kinder,Adrian Bickerstaffe,Sibel Saya,Mark A Jenkins,Jennifer McIntosh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01205-8

2022-05-12

Abstract:Background: We developed a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool ('CRISP') to provide individualised risk-based advice for colorectal cancer screening. Using known environmental, behavioural, and familial risk factors, CRISP was designed to facilitate tailored screening advice to patients aged 50 to 74 years in general practice. In parallel to a randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool, we developed and evaluated an evidence-based implementation strategy. Methods: Qualitative methods were used to explore the implementation of CRISP in general practice. Using one general practice in regional Victoria, Australia, as a 'laboratory', we tested ways to embed CRISP into routine clinical practice. General practitioners, nurses, and operations manager co-designed the implementation methods with researchers, focussing on existing practice processes that would be sustainable. Researchers interviewed the staff regularly to assess the successfulness of the strategies employed, and implementation methods were adapted throughout the study period in response to feedback from qualitative interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the development of the interview guide and intervention strategy. Coding was inductive and themes were developed through consensus between the authors. Emerging themes were mapped onto the CFIR domains and a fidelity checklist was developed to ensure CRISP was being used as intended. Results: Between December 2016 and September 2019, 1 interviews were conducted, both face-to-face and via videoconferencing (Zoom). All interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded. Themes were mapped onto the following CFIR domains: (1) 'characteristics of the intervention': CRISP was valued but time consuming; (2) 'inner setting': the practice was open to changing systems; 3. 'outer setting': CRISP helped facilitate screening; (4) 'individual characteristics': the practice staff were adaptable and able to facilitate adoption of new clinical processes; and (5) 'processes': fidelity checking, and education was important. Conclusions: These results describe a novel method for exploring implementation strategies for a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in the context of a parallel RCT testing clinical efficacy. The study identified successful and unsuccessful implementation strategies using an adaptive methodology over time. This method emphasised the importance of co-design input to make an intervention like CRISP sustainable for use in other practices and with other risk tools.
The cultural safety of research reports on primary healthcare use by Indigenous Peoples: a systematic review

Amandi Hiyare-Hewage,Victoria Sinka,Eleonora Dal Grande,Marianne Kerr,Siah Kim,Kylie-Ann Mallitt,Michelle Dickson,Allison Jaure,Rhonda Wilson,Jonathan C Craig,Jacqueline H Stephens

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-11314-3

2024-07-31

Abstract:Introduction: Community-driven research in primary healthcare (PHC) may reduce the chronic disease burden in Indigenous peoples. This systematic review assessed the cultural safety of reports of research on PHC use by Indigenous peoples from four countries with similar colonial histories. Methods: Medline, CINAHL and Embase were all systematically searched from 1st January 2002 to 4th April 2023. Papers were included if they were original studies, published in English and included data (quantitative, qualitative and/or mixed methods) on primary healthcare use for chronic disease (chronic kidney disease, cardiovascular disease and/or diabetes mellitus) by Indigenous Peoples from Western colonial countries. Study screening and data extraction were undertaken independently by two authors, at least one of whom was Indigenous. The baseline characteristics of the papers were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Aspects of cultural safety of the research papers were assessed using two quality appraisal tools: the CONSIDER tool and the CREATE tool (subset analysis). This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Results: We identified 35 papers from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. Most papers were quantitative (n = 21) and included data on 42,438 people. Cultural safety across the included papers varied significantly with gaps in adequate reporting of research partnerships, provision of clear collective consent from participants and Indigenous research governance throughout the research process, particularly in dissemination. The majority of the papers (94%, 33/35) stated that research aims emerged from communities or empirical evidence. We also found that 71.4% (25/35) of papers reported of using strengths-based approaches by considering the impacts of colonization on reduced primary healthcare access. Conclusion: Research on Indigenous PHC use should adopt more culturally safe ways of providing care and producing research outputs which are relevant to community needs by privileging Indigenous voices throughout the research process including dissemination. Indigenous stakeholders should participate more formally and explicitly throughout the process to guide research practices, inclusive of Indigenous values and community needs.
Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: The EQUATOR Network's Survey of Guideline Authors

Iveta Simera,Douglas G Altman,David Moher,Kenneth F Schulz,John Hoey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050139

2008-06-24

PLoS Medicine

Abstract:Iveta Simera and colleagues survey the authors of 37 guidelines on reporting health research.

medicine, general & internal
GoodReports: developing a website to help health researchers find and use reporting guidelines

Caroline Struthers,James Harwood,Jennifer Anne de Beyer,Paula Dhiman,Patricia Logullo,Michael Schlüssel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01402-x

2021-10-17

Abstract:Background: Th EQUATOR Network improves the quality and transparency in health research, primarily by promoting awareness and use of reporting guidelines. In 2018, the UK EQUATOR Centre launched GoodReports.org , a website that helps authors find and use reporting guidelines. This paper describes the tool's development so far. We describe user experience and behaviour of using GoodReports.org both inside and outside a journal manuscript submission process. We intend to use our findings to inform future development and testing of the tool. Methods: We conducted a survey to collect data on user experience of the GoodReports website. We cross-checked a random sample of 100 manuscripts submitted to a partner journal to describe the level of agreement between the tool's checklist recommendation and what we would have recommended. We compared the proportion of authors submitting a completed reporting checklist alongside their manuscripts between groups exposed or not exposed to the GoodReports tool. We also conducted a study comparing completeness of reporting of manuscript text before an author received a reporting guideline recommendation from GoodReports.org with the completeness of the text subsequently submitted to a partner journal. Results: Seventy percent (423/599) of survey respondents rated GoodReports 8 or more out of 10 for usefulness, and 74% (198/267) said they had made changes to their manuscript after using the website. We agreed with the GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation in 84% (72/86) of cases. Of authors who completed the guideline finder questionnaire, 14% (10/69) failed to submit a completed checklist compared to 30% (41/136) who did not use the tool. Of the 69 authors who received a GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation, 20 manuscript pairs could be reviewed before and after use of GoodReports. Five included more information in their methods section after exposure to GoodReports. On average, authors reported 57% of necessary reporting items before completing a checklist on GoodReports.org and 60% after. Conclusion: The data suggest that reporting guidance is needed early in the writing process, not at submission stage. We are developing GoodReports by adding more reporting guidelines and by creating editable article templates. We will test whether GoodReports users write more complete study reports in a randomised trial targeting researchers starting to write health research articles.
Bridging the gaps among research, policy and practice in ten low- and middle-income countries: Development and testing of a questionnaire for health-care providers

G Emmanuel Guindon,John N Lavis,Boungnong Boupha,Guang Shi,Mintou Sidibe,Botagoz Turdaliyeva,Research to Policy and Practice Study Team (RPPST),

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-8-3

2010-01-29

Health Research Policy and Systems

Abstract:Abstract Background The reliability and validity of instruments used to survey health-care providers' views about and experiences with research evidence have seldom been examined. Methods Country teams from ten low- and middle-income countries (China, Ghana, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Senegal and Tanzania) participated in the development, translation, pilot-testing and administration of a questionnaire designed to measure health-care providers' views and activities related to improving their clinical practice and their awareness of, access to and use of research evidence, as well as changes in their clinical practice that they attribute to particular sources of research evidence that they have used. We use internal consistency as a measure of the questionnaire's reliability and, whenever possible, we use explanatory factor analyses to assess the degree to which questions that pertain to a single domain actually address common themes. We assess the questionnaire's face validity and content validity and, to a lesser extent, we also explore its criterion validity. Results The questionnaire has high internal consistency, with Cronbach's alphas between 0.7 and 0.9 for 16 of 20 domains and sub-domains (identified by factor analyses). Cronbach's alphas are greater than 0.9 for two domains, suggesting some item redundancy. Pre- and post-field work assessments indicate the questionnaire has good face validity and content validity. Our limited assessment of criterion validity shows weak but statistically significant associations between the general influence of research evidence among providers and more specific measures of providers' change in approach to preventing or treating a clinical condition. Conclusion Our analysis points to a number of strengths of the questionnaire - high internal consistency (reliability) and good face and content validity - but also to areas where it can be shortened without losing important conceptual domains.

health policy & services
Improved quality of care by using the PRISMS form to support self-management in patients with COPD: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Ann-Britt Zakrisson,Mats Arne,Karin Lisspers,Lena Lundh,Hanna Sandelowsky,Björn Ställberg,Eva Thors Adolfsson,Kersti Theander

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15253

Abstract:Aims and objective: To investigate the effects on the quality of care of the Patient Report Informing Self-Management Support (PRISMS) form compared with usual care among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) consulting a COPD nurse in primary health care. Background: Patients with COPD experience symptoms affecting their everyday lives, and there is a need for interventions in self-management support. The delivery of chronic care in an organised, structured and planned manner can lead to more productive relationships between professionals and patients. Design: A multicentre randomised controlled trial with a post-test design, according to the CONSORT checklist, in one intervention group (n = 94) and one control group (n = 108). Methods: In addition to usual care, the intervention group (n = 94) completed the PRISMS form to indicate areas where they wanted self-management support before the consultation with the COPD nurse. This form comprises 17 items that patients with COPD commonly experience as problems. The control group received usual care (n = 108). The primary outcome was patients' satisfaction with quality of care, assessed using the Quality from the Patient's Perspective (QPP) questionnaire. Means and (SD) are presented where applicable. Differences between the intervention and control group were analysed with Student's t test for independent groups for interval data, and the Mann-Whitney U test for ordinal data. Results: Participants in the intervention group were more satisfied with the QPP domains "personal attention," regarding both "perceived reality" (p = .021) and "subjective importance" (p = .012). The PRISMS form revealed "shortness of breath" as the most commonly experienced problem and the issue most desired to discuss. Conclusion: The PRISMS form improved patient satisfaction with quality of care regarding personal attention, which is an important factor in patient participation and improving relationships and communication. Relevance to clinical practice: The PRISMS form can be a useful tool in improving person-centred care when delivering self-management support. Register id: 192691 at http://www.researchweb.org/is/en/sverige/project/192691.
The Conceptualization and Measurement of Research Impact in Primary Health Care: Protocol for a Rapid Scoping Review

Monica Aggarwal,Brian G Hutchison,Kristina M Kokorelias,Vivian R Ramsden,Noah M Ivers,Andrew Pinto,Ross E G Uphsur,Sabrina T Wong,Nick Pimlott,Steve Slade

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/55860

2024-04-23

Abstract:Background: The generation of research evidence and knowledge in primary health care (PHC) is crucial for informing the development and implementation of interventions and innovations and driving health policy, health service improvements, and potential societal changes. PHC research has broad effects on patients, practices, services, population health, community, and policy formulation. The in-depth exploration of the definition and measures of research impact within PHC is essential for broadening our understanding of research impact in the discipline and how it compares to other health services research. Objective: The objectives of the study are (1) to understand the conceptualizations and measures of research impact within the realm of PHC and (2) to identify methodological frameworks for evaluation and research impact and the benefits and challenges of using these approaches. The forthcoming review seeks to guide future research endeavors and enhance methodologies used in assessing research impact within PHC. Methods: The protocol outlines the rapid review and environmental scan approach that will be used to explore research impact in PHC and will be guided by established frameworks such as the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences Impact Framework and the Canadian Health Services and Policy Research Alliance. The rapid review follows scoping review guidelines (PRISMA-ScR; Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews). The environmental scan will be done by consulting with professional organizations, academic institutions, information science, and PHC experts. The search strategy will involve multiple databases, citation and forward citation searching, and manual searches of gray literature databases, think tank websites, and relevant catalogs. We will include gray and scientific literature focusing explicitly on research impact in PHC from high-income countries using the World Bank classification. Publications published in English from 1978 will be considered. The collected papers will undergo a 2-stage independent review process based on predetermined inclusion criteria. The research team will extract data from selected studies based on the research questions and the CRISP (Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care) protocol statement. The team will discuss the extracted data, enabling the identification and categorization of key themes regarding research impact conceptualization and measurement in PHC. The narrative synthesis will evolve iteratively based on the identified literature. Results: The results of this study are expected at the end of 2024. Conclusions: The forthcoming review will explore the conceptualization and measurement of research impact in PHC. The synthesis will offer crucial insights that will guide subsequent research, emphasizing the need for a standardized approach that incorporates diverse perspectives to comprehensively gauge the true impact of PHC research. Furthermore, trends and gaps in current methodologies will set the stage for future studies aimed at enhancing our understanding and measurement of research impact in PHC. International registered report identifier (irrid): PRR1-10.2196/55860.
A systematic review of the effectiveness of strategies to improve health care provider performance in low- and middle-income countries: Methods and descriptive results

Samantha Y Rowe,David H Peters,Kathleen A Holloway,John Chalker,Dennis Ross-Degnan,Alexander K Rowe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217617

IF: 3.7

2019-05-31

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background: Health care provider (HCP) performance in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is often inadequate. The Health Care Provider Performance Review (HCPPR) is a comprehensive systematic review of the effectiveness and cost of strategies to improve HCP performance in LMICs. We present the HCPPR's methods, describe methodological and contextual attributes of included studies, and examine time trends of study attributes. Methods: The HCPPR includes studies from LMICs that quantitatively evaluated any strategy to improve HCP performance for any health condition, with no language restrictions. Eligible study designs were controlled trials and interrupted time series. In 2006, we searched 15 databases for published studies; in 2008 and 2010, we completed searches of 30 document inventories for unpublished studies. Data from eligible reports were double-abstracted and entered into a database, which is publicly available. The primary outcome measure was the strategy's effect size. We assessed time trends with logistic, Poisson, and negative binomial regression modeling. We were unable to register with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews) because the protocol was developed prior to the PROSPERO launch. Results: We screened 105,299 citations and included 824 reports from 499 studies of 161 intervention strategies. Most strategies had multiple components and were tested by only one study each. Studies were from 79 countries and had diverse methodologies, geographic settings, HCP types, work environments, and health conditions. Training, supervision, and patient and community supports were the most commonly evaluated strategy components. Only 33.6% of studies had a low or moderate risk of bias. From 1958-2003, the number of studies per year and study quality increased significantly over time, as did the proportion of studies from low-income countries. Only 36.3% of studies reported information on strategy cost or cost-effectiveness. Conclusions: Studies have reported on the efficacy of many strategies to improve HCP performance in LMICs. However, most studies have important methodological limitations. The HCPPR is a publicly accessible resource for decision-makers, researchers, and others interested in improving HCP performance.
GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research

S Staniszewska,J Brett,I Simera,K Seers,C Mockford,S Goodlad,D G Altman,D Moher,R Barber,S Denegri,A Entwistle,P Littlejohns,C Morris,R Suleman,V Thomas,C Tysall

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3453

2017-08-02

BMJ

Abstract:Background While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why.Objective To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2.Methods The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process.Results 143 participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus.Conclusions GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.
Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review

Hueiming Liu,Alim Mohammed,Janani Shanthosh,Madeline News,Tracey-Lea Laba,Maree L Hackett,David Peiris,Stephen Jan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025127

IF: 3.006

2019-08-06

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective: Process evaluations (PEs) alongside randomised controlled trials of complex interventions are valuable because they address questions of for whom, how and why interventions had an impact. We synthesised the methods used in PEs of primary care interventions, and their main findings on implementation barriers and facilitators. Design: Systematic review using the UK Medical Research Council guidance for PE as a guide. Data sources: Academic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE and Global Health) were searched from 1998 until June 2018. Eligibility criteria: We included PE alongside randomised controlled trials of primary care interventions which aimed to improve outcomes for patients with non-communicable diseases. Data extraction and synthesis: Two independent reviewers screened and conducted the data extraction and synthesis, with a third reviewer checking a sample for quality assurance. Results: 69 studies were included. There was an overall lack of consistency in how PEs were conducted and reported. The main weakness is that only 30 studies were underpinned by a clear intervention theory often facilitated by the use of existing theoretical frameworks. The main strengths were robust sampling strategies, and the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data to understand an intervention's mechanisms. Findings were synthesised into three key themes: (1) a fundamental mismatch between what the intervention was designed to achieve and local needs; (2) the required roles and responsibilities of key actors were often not clearly understood; and (3) the health system context-factors such as governance, financing structures and workforce-if unanticipated could adversely impact implementation. Conclusion: Greater consistency is needed in the reporting and the methods of PEs, in particular greater use of theoretical frameworks to inform intervention theory. More emphasis on formative research in designing interventions is needed to align the intervention with the needs of local stakeholders, and to minimise unanticipated consequences due to context-specific barriers. Prospero registration number: CRD42016035572.
Bridging The Gaps Between Research, Policy And Practice In Low- And Middle-Income Countries: A Survey Of Health Care Providers

G. Emmanuel Guindon,John N. Lavis,Francisco Becerra-Posada,Hossein Malek-Afzali,Guang Shi,C. Ashok K. Yesudian,Steven J. Hoffman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.081165

2010-01-01

Canadian Medical Association Journal

Abstract:Background: Gaps continue to exist between research-based evidence and clinical practice. We surveyed health care providers in 10 low- and middle-income countries about their use of research-based evidence and examined factors that may facilitate or impede such use.Methods: We surveyed 1499 health care providers practising in one of four areas relevant to the Millennium Development Goals (prevention of malaria, care of women seeking contraception, care of children with diarrhea and care of patients with tuberculosis) in each of China, Ghana, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Laos, Mexico, Pakistan, Senegal and Tanzania.Results: The proportion of respondents who reported that research was likely to change their clinical practice if performed and published in their own country (84.6% and 86.0% respectively) was higher than the proportion who reported the same about research and publications from their region (66.4% and 63.1%) or from high-income countries (55.8% and 55.5%). Respondents who were most likely to report that the use of research-based evidence led to changes in their practice included those who reported using clinical practice guidelines in paper format (odds ratio [OR] 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.28], using scientific journals from their own country in paper format (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.26-3.22) viewing the quality of research performed in their country as above average or excellent (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.66-3.22); trusting systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.08-2.35); and having easy access to the Internet (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.19-3.02)Interpretation: Locally conducted or published research has played an important role in changing the professional practice of health care providers surveyed in low- and middle-income countries. Increased investments in local research, or at least in locally adapted publications of research-based evidence from other settings, are therefore needed. Although access to the Internet was viewed as a significant factor in whether research-based evidence led to concrete changes in practice, few respondents reported having easy access to the Internet. Therefore, efforts to improve Internet access in clinical settings need to be accelerated.
Strengthening tRansparent reporting of reseArch on uNfinished nursing CARE: The RANCARE guideline

Catherine Blatter,Patti Hamilton,Stefanie Bachnick,Franziska Zúñiga,Dietmar Ausserhofer,Michael Simon,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22103

2021-01-02

Abstract:Unfinished, rationed, missed, or otherwise undone nursing care is a phenomenon observed across health‐care settings worldwide. Irrespective of differing terminology, it has repeatedly been linked to adverse outcomes for both patients and nursing staff. With growing numbers of publications on the topic, scholars have acknowledged persistent barriers to meaningful comparison across studies, settings, and health‐care systems. The aim of this study was thus to develop a guideline to strengthen transparent reporting in research on unfinished nursing care. An international four‐person steering group led a consensus process including a two‐round online Delphi survey and a workshop with 38 international experts. The study was embedded in the tRansparent reporting of reseArch on uNfinished nursing CARE (RANCARE) COST Action. Participation was voluntary. The resulting 40‐item RANCARE guideline provides recommendations for transparent and comprehensive reporting on unfinished nursing care regarding conceptualization, measurement, contextual information, and data analyses. By increasing the transparency and comprehensiveness in reporting of studies on unfinished nursing care, the RANCARE guideline supports efficient use of the research results, for example, allowing researchers and nurses to take purposeful actions, with the goal of improving the safety and quality of health‐care services.

nursing
Improving Palliative Care Research Reporting: A Guide to Reporting Guidelines

Lovely Antony,Anu Savio Thelly,A Latha Srikanth,Alice Stella Verginia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25259/IJPC_61_2024

Abstract:Improving the quality of research reporting is crucial for addressing current challenges in palliative care, with academic journals playing a crucial role in promoting clear and comprehensive reporting through structured guidelines. These guidelines, such as Appraisal of Guidelines, Research, and evaluation, Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Case Reports (CARE) guidelines, transparent reporting of evaluations with nonrandomized designs (TREND), transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD), meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) Checklist, methods of researching end-of-life care Statement, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence 2.0, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology, standard protocol items: recommendations for interventional trials (SPIRIT), template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research and Standards for Qualitative Research, are instrumental in ensuring transparency by furnishing essential details for comprehending, replicating and applying research findings in clinical decision-making and systematic reviews. The Enhancing the quality and transparency of health research (EQUATOR) network champions trustworthy health research literature globally by advocating for transparent and accurate reporting, thereby enhancing the reliability and utility of research outcomes research outcomes.
Primary Health Care: a strategic framework for the prevention and control of chronic non-communicable disease

Alessandro R. Demaio,Karoline Kragelund Nielsen,Britt Pinkowski Tersbøl,Per Kallestrup,Dan W. Meyrowitsch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v7.24504

IF: 2.996

2014-08-04

Global Health Action

Abstract:In 2014, chronic, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) represent the leading causes of global mortality and disability. Government-level concern, and resulting policy changes, are manifesting. However, there continues to be a paucity of guiding frameworks for legislative measures. The surge of NCDs will require strong and effective governance responses, particularly in low and middle-income countries. Simultaneously following the 2008 World Health Report, there has recently been renewed interest in Primary Health Care (PHC) and its core principles. With this, has come strengthened support for revitalizing this approach, which aims for equitable and cost-effective population-health attainment. In this light and reflecting recent major global reports, declarations and events, we propose and critique a PHC approach to NCDs, highlighting PHC, with its core themes, as a valuable guiding framework for health promotion and policy addressing this group of diseases. Responsible Editors: Nawi Ng, Umeå University, Sweden and Julia Schröders, Umeå University, Sweden.

public, environmental & occupational health
Tools and resources for preventing childhood obesity in primary care: A method of evaluation and preliminary assessment

Jillian L S Avis,Angela Komarnicki,Anna P Farmer,Nicholas L Holt,Arnaldo Perez,Nicholas Spence,Geoff D C Ball

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.12.006

Abstract:Objectives: To pilot-test a mixed methods approach to evaluate tools and resources (TRs) that healthcare providers (HCPs) use for preventing childhood obesity in primary care, and report a preliminary descriptive assessment of commonly-used TRs. Methods: This mixed methods study included individual, semi-structured interviews with purposefully-sampled HCPs in Alberta, Canada; interviews were digitally recorded and analyzed thematically (phase I). Two independent reviewers used three assessment checklists to evaluate commonly-used TRs (phase II). HCPs provided feedback on our coding scheme and checklist data (phase III). Results: Three themes described how HCPs (n=19) used TRs: purpose of use (e.g., clinical support), logistical factors (e.g., accessibility), and decision to use (e.g., suitability). The latter theme overlapped with constructs of suitability on the checklists. Overall, participants used 15 TRs, most of which scored 'average' on the checklists. Conclusion: Phases I and II provided unique insights on the evaluation of TRs used for preventing childhood obesity. Criteria on the checklists overlapped with HCPs' perceptions of TR suitability, but did not reflect logistical factors that influenced their use of TRs. Practice implications: Developers of TRs should collaborate with HCPs to ensure that subjective and objective criteria are used to optimize TR suitability in the primary care setting.
Reporting Guidelines for Clinical Pharmacokinetic Studies: The ClinPK Statement

Salmaan Kanji,Meghan Hayes,Adam Ling,Larissa Shamseer,Clarence Chant,David J. Edwards,Scott Edwards,Mary H. H. Ensom,David R. Foster,Brian Hardy,Tyree H. Kiser,Charles la Porte,Jason A. Roberts,Rob Shulman,Scott Walker,Sheryl Zelenitsky,David Moher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-015-0236-8

2015-01-31

Clinical Pharmacokinetics

Abstract:Background and ObjectiveTransparent reporting of all research is essential for assessing the validity of any study. Reporting guidelines are available and endorsed for many types of research but are lacking for clinical pharmacokinetic studies. Such tools promote the consistent reporting of a minimal set of information for end users, and facilitate knowledge translation of research. The objective of this study was to create a guideline to assist in the transparent and complete reporting of clinical pharmacokinetic studies.MethodsPreliminary content to be considered was identified from a systematic search of the literature and regulatory documents. Stakeholders were identified to participate in a modified Delphi exercise and a virtual meeting to generate consensus for items considered essential in the reporting of clinical pharmacokinetic studies. The proposed checklist was pilot tested on 100 recently published clinical pharmacokinetic studies. Overall and itemized compliance with the proposed guidance was determined for each study.ResultsSixty-eight stakeholders from nine countries consented to participate. Four rounds of a modified Delphi survey and a series of small virtual meetings were required to generate consensus for a 24-item checklist considered to be essential to the reporting of clinical pharmacokinetic studies. When applied to the 100 most recently published clinical pharmacokinetic studies, 45 were determined to be compliant with at least 80 % of the checklist items. Explanatory text was prepared using examples of compliant reporting from these and other relevant studies.ConclusionsThe reader’s ability to judge the validity of pharmacokinetic research can be greatly compromised by the incomplete reporting of study information. Using consensus methods, we have developed a tool to guide transparent and accurate reporting of clinical pharmacokinetic studies. Endorsement and implementation of these guidelines by researchers, clinicians and journals would promote more consistent reporting of these studies and allow for better assessment of utility for clinical applications.

pharmacology & pharmacy
What facilitators and barriers might researchers encounter when using reporting guidelines? Part 1: A thematic synthesis

James Harwood,Charlotte Albury,Jennifer Anne de Beyer,Zhaoxiang Bian,Yuting Duan,Shona Kirtley,Michael Schlussel,Lingyun Zhao,Gary S Collins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2238765/v1

2022-01-01

Abstract:Abstract Background Despite endorsement by medical journals, reporting guidelines have only modestly affected reporting quality. We aimed to identify facilitators and barriers that researchers might encounter when using reporting guidelines. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, AMED, WHO Global Index Medicus, SciELO, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, VIP Chinese Medical Journal Database, OSF, and MiRoR for research that collected qualitative data to explore researchers’ experiences of using reporting guidelines, published after 1996 in English, Chinese, Spanish, or Portuguese. We appraised studies using CASP-Qual. For thematic synthesis, we applied descriptive codes to all sentences that reported qualitative findings, then aggregated codes inductively into descriptive themes that captured the codes’ meaning. We interpreted and contextualised possible facilitators and barriers from these descriptive themes to create analytic themes. Results From 18 eligible studies, we developed 12 analytic themes. 1) Researchers may not understand guidance as intended. 2) Researchers report many reasons for using reporting guidelines, and that some are more important than others. 3) Researchers use reporting guidelines for different tasks and want guidance to be delivered in ways that fit their needs. 4) Using reporting guidelines has costs which researchers may feel outweigh benefits. 5) Reporting guidelines may need to be revised and updated for different reasons. 6) Researchers report feeling uncertain or worried if they are unable to report all items. 7) Awareness and accessibility may limit reporting guideline usage. 8) Reporting guidelines may be most beneficial to less experienced researchers, but these researchers may find them harder to use. 9) Researchers seek design advice but reporting guidelines may not be the right place to find it. 10) A reporting guideline's scope must be well-balanced and well-defined. 11) Researchers may have to use multiple reporting guidelines, multiplying complexity and costs. 12) Researchers may use checklists but never read the full guidance. Discussion Few reporting guidelines have been evaluated qualitatively. Many studies used surveys which resulted in thin data and were subject to recall bias. Nevertheless, we identified many potential barriers and facilitators. Our findings will help guideline developers and advocates improve reporting guidance dissemination.
Reporting quality of published reviews of commercial and publicly available mobile health apps (mHealth app reviews): a scoping review protocol

Norina Gasteiger,Gill Norman,Rebecca Grainger,Charlotte Eost-Telling,Debra Jones,Syed Mustafa Ali,Sabine N van der Veer,Claire R Ford,Alex Hall,Kate Law,Matthew Byerly,Alan Davies,Deborah Paripoorani,Chunhu Shi,Dawn Dowding

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083364

IF: 3.006

2024-07-04

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction: Reviews of commercial and publicly available smartphone (mobile) health applications (mHealth app reviews) are being undertaken and published. However, there is variation in the conduct and reporting of mHealth app reviews, with no existing reporting guidelines. Building on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we aim to develop the Consensus for APP Review Reporting Items (CAPPRRI) guidance, to support the conduct and reporting of mHealth app reviews. This scoping review of published mHealth app reviews will explore their alignment, deviation, and modification to the PRISMA 2020 items for systematic reviews and identify a list of possible items to include in CAPPRRI. Method and analysis: We are following the Joanna Briggs Institute approach and Arksey and O'Malley's five-step process. Patient and public contributors, mHealth app review, digital health research and evidence synthesis experts, healthcare professionals and a specialist librarian gave feedback on the methods. We will search SCOPUS, CINAHL Plus, AMED, EMBASE, Medline, APA PsycINFO and the ACM Digital Library for articles reporting mHealth app reviews and use a two-step screening process to identify eligible articles. Information on whether the authors have reported, or how they have modified the PRISMA 2020 items in their reporting, will be extracted. Data extraction will also include the article characteristics, protocol and registration information, review question frameworks used, information about the search and screening process, how apps have been evaluated and evidence of stakeholder engagement. This will be analysed using a content synthesis approach and presented using descriptive statistics and summaries. This protocol is registered on OSF (https://osf.io/5ahjx). Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications (shared on our project website and on the EQUATOR Network website where the CAPPRRI guidance has been registered as under development), conference presentations and blog and social media posts in lay language.

Reporting study results in primary health care: the CRISP guidelines

The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) checklist – the first research reporting guideline made by and for primary care

The 'Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care' (CRISP) statement in the European Journal of General Practice

Exploring a novel method for optimising the implementation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool into primary care: a qualitative study

The cultural safety of research reports on primary healthcare use by Indigenous Peoples: a systematic review

Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: The EQUATOR Network's Survey of Guideline Authors

GoodReports: developing a website to help health researchers find and use reporting guidelines

Bridging the gaps among research, policy and practice in ten low- and middle-income countries: Development and testing of a questionnaire for health-care providers

Improved quality of care by using the PRISMS form to support self-management in patients with COPD: A Randomised Controlled Trial

The Conceptualization and Measurement of Research Impact in Primary Health Care: Protocol for a Rapid Scoping Review

A systematic review of the effectiveness of strategies to improve health care provider performance in low- and middle-income countries: Methods and descriptive results

GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research

Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review

Bridging The Gaps Between Research, Policy And Practice In Low- And Middle-Income Countries: A Survey Of Health Care Providers

Strengthening tRansparent reporting of reseArch on uNfinished nursing CARE: The RANCARE guideline

Improving Palliative Care Research Reporting: A Guide to Reporting Guidelines

Primary Health Care: a strategic framework for the prevention and control of chronic non-communicable disease

Tools and resources for preventing childhood obesity in primary care: A method of evaluation and preliminary assessment

Reporting Guidelines for Clinical Pharmacokinetic Studies: The ClinPK Statement

What facilitators and barriers might researchers encounter when using reporting guidelines? Part 1: A thematic synthesis

Reporting quality of published reviews of commercial and publicly available mobile health apps (mHealth app reviews): a scoping review protocol