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. 質性研究. 護士進修雜志, 2006, 21(11): 964-966.
2.	趙瑞, 拜爭剛, 張靜怡, 等. 中華系列期刊發表定性研究的文獻計量分析和質量評價. 循證醫學, 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, 熊曉美. 質性研究的方法及其在護理專業的應用與展望. 護理學報, 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. 護理質性研究文獻計量學分析. 護理研究, 2018, 32(10): 1637-1639.
8.	劉軍, 張瑤, 竇昊穎, 等. 國內護理質性研究文獻計量學分析. 護理研究, 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.	張盼盼, 陳珊珊, 王云云, 等. 中文護理核心期刊中個體和焦點組訪談研究的報告學質量比較研究. 護士進修雜志, 2016, 31(1): 3-7.
13.	徐倩, 王凌, 胡慧. 近10年我國護理質性研究的應用和發展. 護理研究, 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.	鐘珍梅, 劉少堃, 趙舒煊, 等. 提高定性研究合成報告透明度(ENTREQ)的指南解讀. 循證醫學, 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.	費字彤, 劉建平, 于河, 等. 報告定性研究個體訪談和焦點組訪談統一標準的介紹. 中西醫結合學報, 2008, 6(2): 115-118.
18.	袁濤, 潘奕欣, 顧文靜, 等. 中國科學引文數據庫兒科期刊2010至2016年發表的病例報告質量評價. 中國循證兒科雜志, 2017, 12(1): 27-32.
19.	李瑋彤, 王會梅, 徐蘊, 等. 中國科學引文數據庫護理類期刊有關Me ta分析文獻的質量評價. 解放軍護理雜志, 2018, 35(19): 36-40.
20.	李崢. 護理研究中的質性研究(一). 中國護理管理, 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.	劉明, 袁浩斌. 護理質性研究存在問題與誤區. 中國護理管理, 2009, 9(8): 42-44.
24.	Clissett P. Evaluating qualitative research. J Orthop Nur, 2008, 12(2): 99-105.
25.	謝雁鳴, 廖星. 醫學研究領域里定性訪談法的質量控制與評估. 中西醫結合學報, 2008, 6(7): 668-673.

1. 胡雁. 質性研究. 護士進修雜志, 2006, 21(11): 964-966.
2. 趙瑞, 拜爭剛, 張靜怡, 等. 中華系列期刊發表定性研究的文獻計量分析和質量評價. 循證醫學, 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, 熊曉美. 質性研究的方法及其在護理專業的應用與展望. 護理學報, 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. 護理質性研究文獻計量學分析. 護理研究, 2018, 32(10): 1637-1639.
8. 劉軍, 張瑤, 竇昊穎, 等. 國內護理質性研究文獻計量學分析. 護理研究, 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. 張盼盼, 陳珊珊, 王云云, 等. 中文護理核心期刊中個體和焦點組訪談研究的報告學質量比較研究. 護士進修雜志, 2016, 31(1): 3-7.
13. 徐倩, 王凌, 胡慧. 近10年我國護理質性研究的應用和發展. 護理研究, 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. 鐘珍梅, 劉少堃, 趙舒煊, 等. 提高定性研究合成報告透明度(ENTREQ)的指南解讀. 循證醫學, 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. 費字彤, 劉建平, 于河, 等. 報告定性研究個體訪談和焦點組訪談統一標準的介紹. 中西醫結合學報, 2008, 6(2): 115-118.
18. 袁濤, 潘奕欣, 顧文靜, 等. 中國科學引文數據庫兒科期刊2010至2016年發表的病例報告質量評價. 中國循證兒科雜志, 2017, 12(1): 27-32.
19. 李瑋彤, 王會梅, 徐蘊, 等. 中國科學引文數據庫護理類期刊有關Me ta分析文獻的質量評價. 解放軍護理雜志, 2018, 35(19): 36-40.
20. 李崢. 護理研究中的質性研究(一). 中國護理管理, 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. 劉明, 袁浩斌. 護理質性研究存在問題與誤區. 中國護理管理, 2009, 9(8): 42-44.
24. Clissett P. Evaluating qualitative research. J Orthop Nur, 2008, 12(2): 99-105.
25. 謝雁鳴, 廖星. 醫學研究領域里定性訪談法的質量控制與評估. 中西醫結合學報, 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