Badger Frances, Werrett Julie
School of Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
J Adv Nurs. 2005 Sep;51(5):502-10. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03521.x.
This paper reports an analysis of recruitment and response rates in published nursing research in three peer reviewed nursing journals in 2002. We wished to establish if the deficits in reporting nursing research identified a decade earlier had been addressed.
This analysis was informed by our personal experiences of research which produced widely differing response rates. An examination of the literature revealed a lack of consensus on desirable response rates in nursing research. Previous analyses have shown deficits in describing participants, sampling methods and reporting recruitment.
Papers reporting empirical research in three nursing journals in 2002 were reviewed in terms of a number of variables including research methodology, respondent type, recruitment method, response rate, location, and data collection method. Nominal coding was used as necessary. Data were analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences and a variety of descriptive statistics were employed.
Half of the papers did not report a response rate. Of those which did, over three-quarters of both qualitative and quantitative studies had response rates of 60% or more. Research conducted in hospital and educational settings produced higher response rates than those in community settings. Studies with response rates of less than 60% did not always refer to their rates in the study limitations, and low response rates do not appear to be a barrier to publication.
Reporting of sampling, recruitment and response rates in nursing research must be improved to support nursings' claim to be an evidence-based profession and to underpin clinical governance requirements. Only through improvements in the quality of nursing research publications can knowledge be extended and a better-informed research community be created.
本文报告了对2002年三种经同行评审的护理期刊上发表的护理研究的招募率和回应率的分析。我们希望确定十年前发现的护理研究报告中的缺陷是否得到了解决。
我们个人在研究中的经历导致回应率差异很大，因此进行了这项分析。对文献的审查表明，护理研究中理想的回应率缺乏共识。先前的分析显示，在描述参与者、抽样方法和报告招募情况方面存在缺陷。
对2002年三种护理期刊上报告实证研究的论文进行了审查，审查内容包括多个变量，如研究方法、受访者类型、招募方法、回应率、地点和数据收集方法。必要时使用名义编码。使用社会科学统计软件包对数据进行分析，并采用了各种描述性统计方法。
一半的论文未报告回应率。在报告了回应率的论文中，定性和定量研究中超过四分之三的回应率为60%或更高。在医院和教育环境中进行的研究产生的回应率高于社区环境中的研究。回应率低于60%的研究并不总是在研究局限性中提及它们的回应率，而且低回应率似乎并不是发表的障碍。
护理研究中抽样、招募和回应率的报告必须改进，以支持护理作为一门循证专业的主张，并为临床治理要求提供支持。只有通过提高护理研究出版物的质量，才能扩展知识并创建一个信息更灵通的研究群体。
