University of Split, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Split, Croatia; Université de Paris, CRESS, INSERM, INRA, F-75004 Paris, France.
University of Split, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Split, Croatia; Université de Paris, CRESS, INSERM, INRA, F-75004 Paris, France.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jul;123:100-106. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.03.025. Epub 2020 Apr 4.
The endorsement rates of The STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement are low and little is known about authors' opinions about this reporting guideline. We conducted an online survey with observational study authors on attitude toward and experiences with the STROBE Statement with the aim of understanding how to effectively implement STROBE.
A thematic analysis on the responses to an open-ended question was conducted using inductive coding. Two coders classified responses independently into themes using a codebook. The inter-rater agreement ranged from 87.7 to 99.9%.
15% (n = 150) of survey participants (n = 1,015) shared perceptions and insights on STROBE. We established four themes: 1) perceptions of the checklist, 2) academic confidence, 3) use in education and training, and 4) journal endorsement and use in peer review. Views were diverse and revealed multiple misunderstandings about the checklist's purpose and content, and lack of incentives for its use.
Better communication efforts are needed when disseminating STROBE and other reporting guidelines. These should focus on content, education for early career researchers, and encouragement of critical self-reflection on one's own work. In addition, results emphasized the need for better incentive and enforcement mechanisms.
《流行病学观察研究的报告规范（STROBE）》的认可率较低，人们对作者对该报告指南的看法知之甚少。我们对观察性研究的作者进行了一项关于对 STROBE 声明的态度和经验的在线调查，旨在了解如何有效地实施 STROBE。
使用归纳编码对开放式问题的回答进行主题分析。两位编码员使用代码簿独立地将回答分为主题。评分者间的一致性范围为 87.7%至 99.9%。
15%（n=150）的调查参与者（n=1015）分享了他们对 STROBE 的看法和见解。我们确定了四个主题：1）清单的看法，2）学术信心，3）在教育和培训中的使用，4）期刊认可和在同行评审中的使用。观点多种多样，揭示了对清单目的和内容的多种误解，以及缺乏使用清单的激励措施。
在传播 STROBE 和其他报告指南时，需要进行更好的沟通努力。这些工作应侧重于内容、对早期职业研究人员的教育，并鼓励对自己的工作进行批判性反思。此外，研究结果强调需要更好的激励和执行机制。
