• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

印度定性公共卫生研究报告的完整性:对 20 年文献的系统回顾。

Completeness of reporting in Indian qualitative public health research: a systematic review of 20 years of literature.

机构信息

Public Health Evidence South Asia (PHESA), Prasanna School of Public Health, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.

Department of Health Information Management, School of Allied Health Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India.

出版信息

J Public Health (Oxf). 2019 Jun 1;41(2):405-411. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdy122.

DOI:10.1093/pubmed/fdy122
PMID:30010883
Abstract

BACKGROUND

This study reviewed the completeness of reporting in Indian qualitative public health research (QPHR) studies using the 'Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research' (COREQ) checklist.

METHODS

Search results from five electronic databases were screened by two independent reviewers. We included English-language, primary QPHR studies from India, which were assessed for their compliance with the COREQ checklist. Each COREQ item was noted as either reported or unreported. Descriptive statistics for the number of COREQ items reported by each study, and the number of studies that reported each COREQ item were reported, as were the items reported in each year, and in pre- and post-COREQ time periods.

RESULTS

Of 537 citations, 246 articles were included. Trends demonstrated an increasing number of Indian QPHR studies being published annually, and an overall increase in reporting completeness since 1997. Only two COREQ items were reported in all studies. 52.4% of articles reported between 16 and 21 items, corresponding to 43-57% of items being reported. Six items were reported in fewer than 10% of studies. COREQ domain 1 was least frequently reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite improving trends, the reporting of QPHR in India is incomplete. Authors and journals should ensure adherence to reporting guidelines.

摘要

背景

本研究使用“定性研究报告的统一标准”(COREQ)清单审查了印度定性公共卫生研究(QPHR)中报告的完整性。

方法

两名独立评审员筛选了来自五个电子数据库的搜索结果。我们纳入了英语的、来自印度的主要 QPHR 研究,并评估了它们对 COREQ 清单的遵守情况。每个 COREQ 项目均被标记为已报告或未报告。报告了每个研究报告的 COREQ 项目数量,以及报告了每个 COREQ 项目的研究数量,还报告了每年以及 COREQ 之前和之后的报告项目。

结果

在 537 条引文中,有 246 篇文章被纳入。趋势表明,每年发表的印度 QPHR 研究数量不断增加,自 1997 年以来报告的完整性总体上有所提高。仅在所有研究中报告了两个 COREQ 项目。52.4%的文章报告了 16 到 21 个项目,对应于 43-57%的项目被报告。不到 10%的研究报告了六个项目。COREQ 域 1 报告的频率最低。

结论

尽管有改善的趋势,但印度的 QPHR 报告仍不完整。作者和期刊应确保遵守报告指南。

相似文献

1
Completeness of reporting in Indian qualitative public health research: a systematic review of 20 years of literature.印度定性公共卫生研究报告的完整性:对 20 年文献的系统回顾。
J Public Health (Oxf). 2019 Jun 1;41(2):405-411. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdy122.
2
The quality of quality criteria: Replicating the development of the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ).质量标准的质量:复制定性研究报告的统一标准 (COREQ) 的发展。
Int J Nurs Stud. 2020 Feb;102:103452. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.103452. Epub 2019 Oct 24.
3
How well are dental qualitative studies involving interviews and focus groups reported?涉及访谈和焦点小组的口腔定性研究报告得如何?
J Dent. 2019 May;84:44-48. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2019.03.001. Epub 2019 Mar 9.
4
Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.定性研究报告的统一标准(COREQ):访谈和焦点小组的32项清单
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042. Epub 2007 Sep 14.
5
A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake.元回顾表明,无论采用情况如何,在发布 COREQ- 和 ENTREQ 清单后,定性综述的报告质量都有所提高。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Sep 12;21(1):184. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01363-1.
6
Quality of reporting for qualitative studies in pediatric urology-A scoping review.儿科泌尿外科学中定性研究报告质量的评价:范围综述。
J Pediatr Urol. 2023 Oct;19(5):643-651. doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2023.04.027. Epub 2023 Apr 27.
7
Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies on pelvic floor three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound: a systematic review.盆腔三维经会阴超声诊断准确性研究报告质量的系统评价。
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Oct;50(4):451-457. doi: 10.1002/uog.17390.
8
Young adults' perspectives on living with kidney failure: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.年轻人对肾衰竭生活的看法:定性研究的系统评价与主题综合
BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 10;8(1):e019926. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019926.
9
Reporting Qualitative Research: Standards, Challenges, and Implications for Health Design.定性研究报告:标准、挑战及对健康设计的启示
HERD. 2018 Apr;11(2):16-19. doi: 10.1177/1937586718772615. Epub 2018 May 9.
10
Analysis on Reports of Qualitative Researches Published in Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing.《韩国女性健康护理杂志》发表的定性研究报告分析
Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2012 Dec;18(4):321-332. doi: 10.4069/kjwhn.2012.18.4.321. Epub 2012 Dec 31.

引用本文的文献

1
Evaluations of digital public health interventions in the WHO Southeast Asia Region: a systematic literature review.世界卫生组织东南亚区域数字公共卫生干预措施的评估:一项系统文献综述
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2024 Dec 18;40(1):e78. doi: 10.1017/S026646232400045X.
2
Comprehensive Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (CCQR): Reporting Guideline for Global Health Qualitative Research Methods.全面报告定性研究的标准 (CCQR):全球健康定性研究方法报告指南。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024 Jul 30;21(8):1005. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21081005.
3
Quality, Equity and Partnerships in Mixed Methods and Qualitative Research during Seven Years of Implementing the Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative in 18 Countries.
在18个国家实施结构化运筹学与培训倡议的七年中,混合方法和定性研究中的质量、公平性与伙伴关系
Trop Med Infect Dis. 2022 Oct 17;7(10):305. doi: 10.3390/tropicalmed7100305.
4
A meta-review demonstrates improved reporting quality of qualitative reviews following the publication of COREQ- and ENTREQ-checklists, regardless of modest uptake.元回顾表明,无论采用情况如何,在发布 COREQ- 和 ENTREQ 清单后,定性综述的报告质量都有所提高。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Sep 12;21(1):184. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01363-1.
5
Toolkits for implementing and evaluating digital health: A systematic review of rigor and reporting.实施和评估数字健康工具包:系统评价的严谨性和报告。
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2021 Jun 12;28(6):1298-1307. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocab010.
6
Reporting guideline checklists are not quality evaluation forms: they are guidance for writing.报告指南清单并非质量评估表格:它们是写作指南。
Health Sci Rep. 2020 May 3;3(2):e165. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.165. eCollection 2020 Jun.
7
Improving the transparency and integrity of scientific reports on health. New instructions for authors!提高关于健康的科学报告的透明度和完整性。给作者的新指南!
Sao Paulo Med J. 2019 May 8;137(1):1-2. doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.2019.1372100419ap.