Pfledderer Christopher D, von Klinggraeff Lauren, Burkart Sarah, da Silva Bandeira Alexsandra, Armstrong Bridget, Weaver R Glenn, Adams Elizabeth L, Beets Michael W
Department of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health Austin Campus, Austin, TX, 78701, USA.
Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, 921 Assembly Street, Columbia, SC, 29205, USA.
Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2023 Sep 13;9(1):161. doi: 10.1186/s40814-023-01389-w.
Guidelines, checklists, frameworks, and recommendations (GCFRs) related to preliminary studies serve as essential resources to assist behavioral intervention researchers in reporting findings from preliminary studies, but their impact on preliminary study reporting comprehensiveness is unknown. The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping bibliometric review of recently published preliminary behavioral-focused intervention studies to (1) examine the prevalence of GCFR usage and (2) determine the associations between GCFR usage and reporting feasibility-related characteristics.
A systematic search was conducted for preliminary studies of behavioral-focused interventions published between 2018 and 2020. Studies were limited to the top 25 journals publishing behavioral-focused interventions, text mined to identify usage of GCFRs, and categorized as either not citing GCFRs or citing ≥ 2 GCFRs (Citers). A random sample of non-Citers was text mined to identify studies which cited other preliminary studies that cited GCFRs (Indirect Citers) and those that did not (Never Citers). The presence/absence of feasibility-related characteristics was compared between Citers, Indirect Citers, and Never Citers via univariate logistic regression.
Studies (n = 4143) were identified, and 1316 were text mined to identify GCFR usage (n = 167 Citers). A random sample of 200 studies not citing a GCFR were selected and categorized into Indirect Citers (n = 71) and Never Citers (n = 129). Compared to Never Citers, Citers had higher odds of reporting retention, acceptability, adverse events, compliance, cost, data collection feasibility, and treatment fidelity (OR = 2.62-14.15, p < 0.005). Citers also had higher odds of mentioning feasibility in purpose statements, providing progression criteria, framing feasibility as the primary outcome, and mentioning feasibility in conclusions (OR = 6.31-17.04, p < 0.005) and lower odds of mentioning efficacy in purpose statements, testing for efficacy, mentioning efficacy in conclusions, and suggesting future testing (ORrange = 0.13-0.54, p < 0.05). Indirect Citers had higher odds of reporting acceptability and treatment fidelity (OR = 2.12-2.39, p < 0.05) but lower odds of testing for efficacy (OR = 0.36, p < 0.05) compared to Never Citers.
The citation of GCFRs is associated with greater reporting of feasibility-related characteristics in preliminary studies of behavioral-focused interventions. Researchers are encouraged to use and cite literature that provides guidance on design, implementation, analysis, and reporting to improve the comprehensiveness of reporting for preliminary studies.
与初步研究相关的指南、清单、框架和建议（GCFRs）是帮助行为干预研究人员报告初步研究结果的重要资源，但其对初步研究报告全面性的影响尚不清楚。本研究的目的是对最近发表的以行为为重点的初步干预研究进行一项范围界定文献计量学综述，以（1）检查GCFRs的使用情况，以及（2）确定GCFRs使用与报告可行性相关特征之间的关联。
对2018年至2020年间发表的以行为为重点的干预初步研究进行系统检索。研究限于发表以行为为重点的干预研究的前25种期刊，通过文本挖掘识别GCFRs的使用情况，并分为未引用GCFRs或引用≥2种GCFRs（引用者）。对未引用者的随机样本进行文本挖掘，以识别引用了其他引用GCFRs的初步研究的研究（间接引用者）和未引用的研究（从未引用者）。通过单因素逻辑回归比较引用者、间接引用者和从未引用者之间可行性相关特征的有无。
共识别出4143项研究，对其中1316项进行文本挖掘以识别GCFRs的使用情况（167项引用者）。随机抽取200项未引用GCFR的研究样本，分为间接引用者（71项）和从未引用者（129项）。与从未引用者相比，引用者报告保留率、可接受性、不良事件、依从性、成本、数据收集可行性和治疗保真度的可能性更高（OR=2.62-14.15，p<0.005）。引用者在目的陈述中提及可行性、提供进展标准、将可行性作为主要结果进行阐述以及在结论中提及可行性的可能性也更高（OR=6.31-17.04，p<0.005），而在目的陈述中提及疗效、进行疗效测试、在结论中提及疗效以及建议未来进行测试的可能性更低（OR范围=0.13-0.54，p<0.05）。与从未引用者相比，间接引用者报告可接受性和治疗保真度的可能性更高（OR=2.12-2.39，p<0.05），但进行疗效测试的可能性更低（OR=0.36，p<0.05）。
在以行为为重点的干预初步研究中，引用GCFRs与更多报告可行性相关特征有关。鼓励研究人员使用和引用提供设计、实施、分析和报告指导的文献，以提高初步研究报告的全面性。
