ArticlePloS one2016
Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Publication and related biases in health services research: a systematic review of empirical evidence.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Pooled it
- What happens to qualitative studies initially presented as conference abstracts: A survey among study authors.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- The extent and quality of qualitative evidence included in health technology assessments: a review of submissions to NICE and CADTH.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2023Review
- The use of GRADE-CERQual in qualitative evidence synthesis: an evaluation of fidelity and reporting.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Qualitative research in health: value and visibility.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2023Article
- Does the process of developing products for knowledge mobilisation from healthcare research influence their uptake? A comparative case study.Implementation science communications · 2022Article
- Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on the clinical utility of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Foot Disease Activity Index.Rheumatology international · 2022Article
- Patient, carer and health professional experiences of end-of-life care services in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an interpretive synthesis of qualitative studies.Integrated healthcare journal · 2022Review
- Implementation of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: patterns of utilization and evidence development.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
- Quantitizing findings from qualitative studies for integration in mixed methods reviewing.Research synthesis methods · 2020Article
- Reporting bias in imaging: higher accuracy is linked to faster publication.European radiology · 2018Article
- Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series.Implementation science : IS · 2018Article
- Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 7: understanding the potential impacts of dissemination bias.Implementation science : IS · 2018Article
- Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings-paper 6: how to assess relevance of the data.Implementation science : IS · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQualitative 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.
methodsA 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.
results1032 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.