IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0159290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Ingrid Toews
  • Claire Glenton
  • Simon Lewin
  • Rigmor C Berg
  • Jane Noyes
  • Andrew Booth
  • Ana Marusic
  • Mario Malicki
  • Heather M Munthe-Kaas
  • Joerg J Meerpohl

Abstract

Background: Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention. Methods: A survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling. Results: 1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers “(strongly) agreed” that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% “(strongly) agreed” that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, “(strongly) agreed” that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care. Conclusions: The proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Ingrid Toews & Claire Glenton & Simon Lewin & Rigmor C Berg & Jane Noyes & Andrew Booth & Ana Marusic & Mario Malicki & Heather M Munthe-Kaas & Joerg J Meerpohl, 2016. "Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0159290
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159290
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0159290&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0159290?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simon Lewin & Xavier Bosch-Capblanch & Sandy Oliver & Elie A Akl & Gunn E Vist & John N Lavis & Davina Ghersi & John-Arne Røttingen & Peter Steinmann & Metin Gulmezoglu & Peter Tugwell & Fadi El-Jarda, 2012. "Guidance for Evidence-Informed Policies about Health Systems: Assessing How Much Confidence to Place in the Research Evidence," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-8, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0159290. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.