Alfred Health Clinical School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Int Wound J. 2018 Dec;15(6):1010-1024. doi: 10.1111/iwj.12968. Epub 2018 Aug 22.
The Hawthorne Effect (HE) is considered a methodological artefact in research, although its definition and influence on research outcomes lack consensus. This review explored how this term has been mentioned and discussed in the area of wound research. A scoping review was conducted on ProQuest Central, Scopus, EbscoHost, and online databases of indexed wound journals using the methodological framework by Arksey and Malley. A review protocol was applied to detail key terms, truncation and Boolean operators, and inclusion and exclusion criteria. Search findings were reported using PRISMA guidelines. A total of 38 articles reporting primary evidence were identified. Three themes emerged from the review: wound researchers' awareness of HE, the acknowledgement of the existence or otherwise of HE, and the mentioning of HE in passing. These results reflect a lack of attention to and understanding and awareness of the HE in the area of wound research. It is suggested that the HE receives more attention as a methodological concern, and its potential influence is considered and mitigated when planning future studies. Recommendations are provided to minimise the impact of the HE on the rigour of the research and confidence afforded to research findings.
霍桑效应（HE）被认为是研究中的一种方法学假象，尽管其定义及其对研究结果的影响缺乏共识。本综述探讨了这一术语在伤口研究领域中是如何被提及和讨论的。采用 Arksey 和 Malley 的方法学框架，在 ProQuest Central、Scopus、EbscoHost 和索引伤口期刊的在线数据库上进行了范围综述。应用审查方案详细说明主要术语、截断和布尔运算符以及纳入和排除标准。使用 PRISMA 指南报告搜索结果。确定了 38 篇报告主要证据的文章。综述中出现了三个主题：伤口研究人员对 HE 的认识、对 HE 的存在与否的认识以及对 HE 的附带提及。这些结果反映出在伤口研究领域中，人们对 HE 的关注度不够，对其缺乏理解、认识和意识。建议更多地关注 HE 作为一种方法学关注点，并在规划未来研究时考虑和减轻其潜在影响。提出了一些建议，以最小化 HE 对研究严谨性和对研究结果的信心的影响。
