Reporting quality of survey research articles published in the pharmacy literature
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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”
From A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS) (2021) · cites this paper as [30]
Cites
Reporting Guidelines for Survey Research: An Analysis of Published Guidance and Reporting Practices
Bennett, C., Khangura, S., Brehaut, J. C., Graham, I. D., Moher, D., Potter, B. K., & M. Grimshaw, J. (2011) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001069 · Cited by 397 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS)
Sharma, A., Minh Duc, N. T., Luu Lam Thang, T., Nam, N. H., Ng, S. J., Abbas, K. S., Huy, N. T., Marušić, A., Paul, C. L., Kwok, J., et al. (2021) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-021-06737-1 · Cited by 2,292 · see citing works
- 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