The quality of qualitative research reports published by high-impact journals in the field of nursing in China from 2016 to 2018_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

FENG Lanling ¹ , ZHANG Qian ¹ ,  YANG Xuemei ² , PEI Lusi ¹ , MA Bin ³

1. School of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;
2. Department of Nursing, The Second Hospital e of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 73000, P.R.China;
3. Evidence Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

YANG Xuemei, Email: 13919480379@163.com; MA Bin, Email:

Keywords：

Chinese science citation database; Nursing; Quality research; Reporting quality

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201908061

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objectives To evaluate the reporting quality of individual/focus group interviews published in nursing journals included in the Chinese science citation database (CSCD).Methods CSCD database was electronically searched to collect qualitative studies published in nursing journals included in CSCD from January 2016 to December 2018. Two researchers independently screened literatures, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies by COREQ guidelines, SPSS 25.0 software was then used for statistical analysis.Results A total of 223 qualitative researches were included. The results of COREQ evaluation showed that full report rate of 43.8% (14/32) studies were less than 50%, 78.6% (11/14) were less than 20%, and the full report rate of item 4 was even 0%. There were no significant differences between different total cites and the availability of funding in COREQ guidelines.Conclusion The reporting quality of the qualitative researches published in the four nursing journals included in the CSCD requires further improvement. Therefore, we suggest that domestic nursing journals should introduce COREQ guidelines in contribution and strictly implement it in editorial review and peer review.

Citation： FENG Lanling, ZHANG Qian, YANG Xuemei, PEI Lusi, MA Bin. The quality of qualitative research reports published by high-impact journals in the field of nursing in China from 2016 to 2018. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2020, 20(3): 311-316. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201908061 Copy

1.	胡雁. 质性研究. 护士进修杂志, 2006, 21(11): 964-966.
2.	赵瑞, 拜争刚, 张静怡, 等. 中华系列期刊发表定性研究的文献计量分析和质量评价. 循证医学, 2016, 16(3): 180-185.
3.	Dixon-Woods M, Sutton A, Shaw R, et al. Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods. J Health Serv Res Policy, 2007, 12(1): 42-47.
4.	Shaw RL, Booth A, Sutton AJ, et al. Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2004, 4(1): 5.
5.	王斌, 熊晓美. 质性研究的方法及其在护理专业的应用与展望. 护理学报, 2008, 15(3): 25-27.
6.	Buus N, Agdal R. Can the use of reporting guidelines in peer-review damage the quality and contribution of qualitative health care research? Int J Nurs Stud, 2013, 50(10): 1289-1291.
7.	瞿佳, 翁雪玲, 高玲玲. 护理质性研究文献计量学分析. 护理研究, 2018, 32(10): 1637-1639.
8.	刘军, 张瑶, 窦昊颖, 等. 国内护理质性研究文献计量学分析. 护理研究, 2015, 29(19): 2401-2403.
9.	Yarcheski A, Mahon NE, Yarcheski TJ. A descriptive study of research published in scientific nursing journals from 1985 to 2010. Int J Nurs Stud, 2012, 49(9): 1112-1121.
10.	Godinho MA, Gudi N, Milkowska M, et a1. Completeness of reporting in Indian qualitative public health research: a systematic review of 20 years of literature. J Public Health, 2018, 41(2): 405-411.
11.	Al-Moghrabi D, Tsichlaki A, Alkadi S, et al. How well are dental qualitative studies involving interviews and focus groups reported? J Dent, 2019, 84: 44-48.
12.	张盼盼, 陈珊珊, 王云云, 等. 中文护理核心期刊中个体和焦点组访谈研究的报告学质量比较研究. 护士进修杂志, 2016, 31(1): 3-7.
13.	徐倩, 王凌, 胡慧. 近10年我国护理质性研究的应用和发展. 护理研究, 2014, 28(7): 887-889.
14.	O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, et al. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med, 2014, 89(9): 1245-1251.
15.	钟珍梅, 刘少堃, 赵舒煊, 等. 提高定性研究合成报告透明度(ENTREQ)的指南解读. 循证医学, 2015, 15(5): 309-313.
16.	Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care, 2007, 19(6): 349-357.
17.	费字彤, 刘建平, 于河, 等. 报告定性研究个体访谈和焦点组访谈统一标准的介绍. 中西医结合学报, 2008, 6(2): 115-118.
18.	袁涛, 潘奕欣, 顾文静, 等. 中国科学引文数据库儿科期刊2010至2016年发表的病例报告质量评价. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2017, 12(1): 27-32.
19.	李玮彤, 王会梅, 徐蕴, 等. 中国科学引文数据库护理类期刊有关Me ta分析文献的质量评价. 解放军护理杂志, 2018, 35(19): 36-40.
20.	李峥. 护理研究中的质性研究(一). 中国护理管理, 2007, 7(4): 78-80.
21.	Johnson RB. Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 1997, 118(2): 282-292.
22.	Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet, 2001, 358(9280): 483-488.
23.	刘明, 袁浩斌. 护理质性研究存在问题与误区. 中国护理管理, 2009, 9(8): 42-44.
24.	Clissett P. Evaluating qualitative research. J Orthop Nur, 2008, 12(2): 99-105.
25.	谢雁鸣, 廖星. 医学研究领域里定性访谈法的质量控制与评估. 中西医结合学报, 2008, 6(7): 668-673.

1. 胡雁. 质性研究. 护士进修杂志, 2006, 21(11): 964-966.
2. 赵瑞, 拜争刚, 张静怡, 等. 中华系列期刊发表定性研究的文献计量分析和质量评价. 循证医学, 2016, 16(3): 180-185.
3. Dixon-Woods M, Sutton A, Shaw R, et al. Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods. J Health Serv Res Policy, 2007, 12(1): 42-47.
4. Shaw RL, Booth A, Sutton AJ, et al. Finding qualitative research: an evaluation of search strategies. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2004, 4(1): 5.
5. 王斌, 熊晓美. 质性研究的方法及其在护理专业的应用与展望. 护理学报, 2008, 15(3): 25-27.
6. Buus N, Agdal R. Can the use of reporting guidelines in peer-review damage the quality and contribution of qualitative health care research? Int J Nurs Stud, 2013, 50(10): 1289-1291.
7. 瞿佳, 翁雪玲, 高玲玲. 护理质性研究文献计量学分析. 护理研究, 2018, 32(10): 1637-1639.
8. 刘军, 张瑶, 窦昊颖, 等. 国内护理质性研究文献计量学分析. 护理研究, 2015, 29(19): 2401-2403.
9. Yarcheski A, Mahon NE, Yarcheski TJ. A descriptive study of research published in scientific nursing journals from 1985 to 2010. Int J Nurs Stud, 2012, 49(9): 1112-1121.
10. Godinho MA, Gudi N, Milkowska M, et a1. Completeness of reporting in Indian qualitative public health research: a systematic review of 20 years of literature. J Public Health, 2018, 41(2): 405-411.
11. Al-Moghrabi D, Tsichlaki A, Alkadi S, et al. How well are dental qualitative studies involving interviews and focus groups reported? J Dent, 2019, 84: 44-48.
12. 张盼盼, 陈珊珊, 王云云, 等. 中文护理核心期刊中个体和焦点组访谈研究的报告学质量比较研究. 护士进修杂志, 2016, 31(1): 3-7.
13. 徐倩, 王凌, 胡慧. 近10年我国护理质性研究的应用和发展. 护理研究, 2014, 28(7): 887-889.
14. O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, et al. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med, 2014, 89(9): 1245-1251.
15. 钟珍梅, 刘少堃, 赵舒煊, 等. 提高定性研究合成报告透明度(ENTREQ)的指南解读. 循证医学, 2015, 15(5): 309-313.
16. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care, 2007, 19(6): 349-357.
17. 费字彤, 刘建平, 于河, 等. 报告定性研究个体访谈和焦点组访谈统一标准的介绍. 中西医结合学报, 2008, 6(2): 115-118.
18. 袁涛, 潘奕欣, 顾文静, 等. 中国科学引文数据库儿科期刊2010至2016年发表的病例报告质量评价. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2017, 12(1): 27-32.
19. 李玮彤, 王会梅, 徐蕴, 等. 中国科学引文数据库护理类期刊有关Me ta分析文献的质量评价. 解放军护理杂志, 2018, 35(19): 36-40.
20. 李峥. 护理研究中的质性研究(一). 中国护理管理, 2007, 7(4): 78-80.
21. Johnson RB. Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 1997, 118(2): 282-292.
22. Malterud K. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet, 2001, 358(9280): 483-488.
23. 刘明, 袁浩斌. 护理质性研究存在问题与误区. 中国护理管理, 2009, 9(8): 42-44.
24. Clissett P. Evaluating qualitative research. J Orthop Nur, 2008, 12(2): 99-105.
25. 谢雁鸣, 廖星. 医学研究领域里定性访谈法的质量控制与评估. 中西医结合学报, 2008, 6(7): 668-673.

Previous Article
Analysis of the citation of evidence in traditional Chinese medicine clinical pathways
Next Article
Clinical decision support system for medication safety: an overview of systematic reviews

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

The quality of qualitative research reports published by high-impact journals in the field of nursing in China from 2016 to 2018

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content