The Library
Publication and related bias in quantitative health services & delivery research : systematic reviews, case studies, inception cohorts and informant interviews
Tools
Tools
Tools
Ayorinde, Abimbola, Williams, Iestyn, Mannion, Russell, Song, Fujian, Skrybant, Magdalena, Lilford, Richard J. and Chen, Yen-Fu (2020) Publication and related bias in quantitative health services & delivery research : systematic reviews, case studies, inception cohorts and informant interviews. Health Services and Delivery Research, 8 (33). doi:10.3310/hsdr08330 ISSN 2050-4349.
|
PDF
WRAP-publication-related-bias-quantitative-health-services-delivery-research-Chen-2020.pdf - Published Version - Requires a PDF viewer. Download (8Mb) | Preview |
|
![[img]](https://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png) |
PDF
WRAP-publication-related-bias-quantitative-health-services-delivery-research-Chen-2020.pdf - Accepted Version Embargoed item. Restricted access to Repository staff only - Requires a PDF viewer. Download (1804Kb) |
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr08330
Abstract
Background
Bias in the publication and reporting of research findings (referred to as publication and related bias here) poses a major threat in evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making. Although this bias has been well documented in clinical research, little is known about its occurrence and magnitude in health services and delivery research.
Objectives
To obtain empirical evidence on publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research; to examine current practice in detecting/mitigating this bias in health services and delivery research systematic reviews; and to explore stakeholders’ perception and experiences concerning such bias.
Methods
The project included five distinct but interrelated work packages. Work package 1 was a systematic review of empirical and methodological studies. Work package 2 involved a survey (meta-epidemiological study) of randomly selected systematic reviews of health services and delivery research topics (n = 200) to evaluate current practice in the assessment of publication and outcome reporting bias during evidence synthesis. Work package 3 included four case studies to explore the applicability of statistical methods for detecting such bias in health services and delivery research. In work package 4 we followed up four cohorts of health services and delivery research studies (total n = 300) to ascertain their publication status, and examined whether publication status was associated with statistical significance or perceived ‘positivity’ of study findings. Work package 5 involved key informant interviews with diverse health services and delivery research stakeholders (n = 24), and a focus group discussion with patient and service user representatives (n = 8).
Results
We identified only four studies that set out to investigate publication and related bias in health services and delivery research in work package 1. Three of these studies focused on health informatics research and one concerned health economics. All four studies reported evidence of the existence of this bias, but had methodological weaknesses. We also identified three health services and delivery research systematic reviews in which findings were compared between published and grey/unpublished literature. These reviews found that the quality and volume of evidence and effect estimates sometimes differed significantly between published and unpublished literature. Work package 2 showed low prevalence of considering/assessing publication (43%) and outcome reporting (17%) bias in health services and delivery research systematic reviews. The prevalence was lower among reviews of associations than among reviews of interventions. The case studies in work package 3 highlighted limitations in current methods for detecting these biases due to heterogeneity and potential confounders. Follow-up of health services and delivery research cohorts in work package 4 showed positive association between publication status and having statistically significant or positive findings. Diverse views concerning publication and related bias and insights into how features of health services and delivery research might influence its occurrence were uncovered through the interviews with health services and delivery research stakeholders and focus group discussion conducted in work package 5.
Conclusions
This study provided prima facie evidence on publication and related bias in quantitative health services and delivery research. This bias does appear to exist, but its prevalence and impact may vary depending on study characteristics, such as study design, and motivation for conducting the evaluation. Emphasis on methodological novelty and focus beyond summative assessments may mitigate/lessen the risk of such bias in health services and delivery research. Methodological and epistemological diversity in health services and delivery research and changing landscape in research publication need to be considered when interpreting the evidence. Collection of further empirical evidence and exploration of optimal health services and delivery research practice are required.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjects: | R Medicine > R Medicine (General) R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine |
||||||||
| Divisions: | Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Population, Evidence & Technologies (PET) Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School |
||||||||
| Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): | Evidence-based medicine , Systematic reviews (Medical research), Medical care -- Research -- Evaluation, Health services administration -- Research, Health services accessibility | ||||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | Health Services and Delivery Research | ||||||||
| Publisher: | NIHR Journals Library | ||||||||
| ISSN: | 2050-4349 | ||||||||
| Official Date: | September 2020 | ||||||||
| Dates: |
|
||||||||
| Volume: | 8 | ||||||||
| Number: | 33 | ||||||||
| DOI: | 10.3310/hsdr08330 | ||||||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||||||
| Reuse Statement (publisher, data, author rights): | © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. This work was produced by Ayorinde et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK. | ||||||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Restricted or Subscription Access | ||||||||
| Copyright Holders: | © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2020. | ||||||||
| Date of first compliant deposit: | 8 January 2020 | ||||||||
| Date of first compliant Open Access: | 18 January 2021 | ||||||||
| RIOXX Funder/Project Grant: |
|
||||||||
| Related URLs: |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
