Cited by 21Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsSurvey Methodology and NonresponsePharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Reporting quality of survey research articles published in the pharmacy literature

Rybakov, Kiersten N., Beckett, Robert, Dilley, Ian, Sheehan, Amy Heck·2020·Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy

Abstract

Background Survey research methodology is commonly used in the pharmacy literature and standards have been set forth for quality reporting. A systematic review to assess the reporting quality of survey research has only been completed for general medical literature. Objectives The objective of this study is to examine the quality of survey research reporting published in the pharmacy literature and identify reporting areas researchers can focus on for increased transparency in survey research methodology. Methods A cross-sectional study of survey research articles published in seven key pharmacy journals in 2016 was conducted using a published 30-item checklist instrument designed for the reporting quality surveys. Each article was evaluated by two independent study investigators and assigned a final score out of 30. Results Out of 197 articles assessed for eligibility, 105 (53%) used survey research as the primary methodology and were included in the study. The average reporting score was 18.2±3.0 (range 10-25) out of 30, with the highest average scores reported for PharmacoEconomics (22.5), JMCP (20.4) and RSAP (19.8). Checklist items related to the quality of reporting survey research methodology with the highest compliance included: original reference cited for use of existing tools (100%), description of survey population and sample frame (90%); and reporting response rate (90%). Checklist items with low reporting included: psychometric properties for existing tools (14%); reliability and validity for new instruments (11%); analysis of nonresponse bias (8%); definition of complete versus partial responses (8%); methods of handling missing data (19%); and information about how non-respondents differ from respondents (14%). Conclusions Survey research published in the pharmacy literature scored moderately on a published instrument designed for systematic appraisal of survey research reporting quality. Several areas for continued improvement exist for survey research reporting quality in the pharmacy literature.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.01.005

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Similar concerns regarding the qualities of surveys have been raised in other medical fields.

    “Similar concerns regarding the qualities of surveys have been raised in other medical fields. 28 -33”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rybakov, K. N., Beckett, R., Dilley, I., & Sheehan, A. H.
Affiliations
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Eli Lilly (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Sheehan, Amy Heck
Venue
Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
16
Issue
10
Pages
1354-1358
ISSN
1551-7411 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3002556608
Cited by
21
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
survey research, reporting quality, pharmacy literature, research transparency, psychometric properties, nonresponse bias, missing data handling, reliability and validity
MeSH terms
Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Pharmacy, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Checklist

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review