1 Inserm, CHRU Nancy, Université de Lorraine, CIC-1433 Epidemiologie Clinique, Nancy, France.
2 University of Lorraine, EA 4360 APEMAC, Metz.
Qual Health Res. 2019 Jan;29(1):149-156. doi: 10.1177/1049732318783186. Epub 2018 Jun 28.
A systematic review of articles using qualitative methods to generate questionnaire items identified in MEDLINE and PsycINFO from 2000 to 2014 was carried out. Articles were analyzed for (a) year of publication and journal domain, (b) qualitative data collection methods, (c) method of data content analysis, (d) professional experts' input in item generation, and (e) debriefing of the newly developed items. In total, 371 articles were included and results showed (a) an acceleration of published articles, (b) individual interviews and focus groups were common ways of generating items and no emergent approach was identified, (c) the content analysis was usually not described (43% of articles), (d) experts were involved in eliciting concepts in less than a third of articles, (e) 61% of articles involved a step of further submission of newly developed items to the population of interest. This review showed an insufficient reporting of qualitative methods used to generate new questionnaires despite previous recommendations.
一项系统综述，对从 2000 年至 2014 年在 MEDLINE 和 PsycINFO 中使用定性方法生成问卷条目的文章进行了分析。文章分析了（a）出版年份和期刊领域，（b）定性数据收集方法，（c）数据内容分析方法，（d）专业专家在条目生成中的投入，以及（e）新开发条目的汇报。共纳入 371 篇文章，结果显示：（a）发表文章的速度加快；（b）个体访谈和焦点小组是生成条目的常见方法，但没有发现新出现的方法；（c）内容分析通常未被描述（占文章的 43%）；（d）在不到三分之一的文章中，专家参与了概念的启发；（e）61%的文章涉及将新开发的条目进一步提交给感兴趣人群的步骤。尽管有先前的建议，但本综述显示，用于生成新问卷的定性方法报告不足。
