Office of Population and Reproductive Health, United States Agency for International Development, 500 D St SW, UA-5th Floor, Washington DC, 20547, USA.
Department of International Health, Health Systems Program, Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, 615 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Int J Equity Health. 2022 Aug 30;21(Suppl 1):121. doi: 10.1186/s12939-022-01716-2.
An increasing number of evaluations of social accountability (SA) interventions have been published in the past decade, however, reporting gaps make it difficult to summarize findings. We developed the Social Accountability Reporting for Research (SAR4Research) checklist to support researchers to improve the documentation of SA processes, context, study designs, and outcomes in the peer reviewed literature and to enhance application of findings.
We used a multi-step process, starting with an umbrella review of reviews on SA to identify reporting gaps. Next, we reviewed existing guidelines for reporting on behavioral interventions to determine whether one could be used in its current or adapted form. We received feedback from practitioners and researchers and tested the checklist through three worked examples using outcome papers from three SA projects.
Our umbrella review of SA studies identified reporting gaps in all areas, including gaps in reporting on the context, intervention components, and study methods. Because no existing guidelines called for details on context and the complex processes in SA interventions, we used CONSORT-SPI as the basis for the SAR4Research checklist, and adapted it using other existing checklists to fill gaps. Feedback from practitioners, researchers and the worked examples suggested the need to eliminate redundancies, add explanations for items, and clarify reporting for quantitative and qualitative study components.
Results of SA evaluations in the peer-reviewed literature will be more useful, facilitating learning and application of findings, when study designs, interventions and their context are described fully in one or a set of papers. This checklist will help authors report better in peer-reviewed journal articles. With sufficient information, readers will better understand whether the results can inform accountability strategies in their own contexts. As a field, we will be better able to identify emerging findings and gaps in our understanding of SA.
在过去十年中，越来越多的关于社会问责制 (SA) 干预措施的评估结果被发表，但由于报告存在差距，难以对研究结果进行总结。因此，我们开发了社会问责制报告工具（SAR4Research）清单，以支持研究人员改进社会问责制过程、背景、研究设计和结果在同行评议文献中的记录，并增强研究结果的应用。
我们使用了一个多步骤的过程，首先对社会问责制评价的综述进行伞式审查，以确定报告差距。接下来，我们审查了现有的行为干预措施报告指南，以确定是否可以在现有或改编形式下使用。我们收到了从业者和研究人员的反馈，并通过三个使用来自三个社会问责制项目的结果文件的工作示例来测试清单。
我们对社会问责制研究的伞式审查确定了所有领域的报告差距，包括背景、干预措施和研究方法方面的差距。由于没有现有的指南要求详细说明背景和社会问责制干预措施的复杂过程，我们使用 CONSORT-SPI 作为 SAR4Research 清单的基础，并使用其他现有的清单进行改编，以填补空白。从业者、研究人员和工作示例的反馈表明，需要消除冗余，为项目添加解释，并阐明定量和定性研究组件的报告。
当研究设计、干预措施及其背景在一篇或一组论文中得到充分描述时，同行评议文献中的社会问责制评价结果将更有用，有助于学习和应用研究结果。该清单将有助于作者在同行评议期刊文章中更好地报告。有了足够的信息，读者将更好地理解结果是否可以为自己的背景提供问责策略信息。作为一个领域，我们将能够更好地确定社会问责制理解方面的新发现和差距。
