|Appears in Collections:||Faculty of Social Sciences Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Do pharmacy intervention reports adequately describe their interventions? A template for intervention description and replication analysis of reports included in a systematic review|
|Author(s):||de Barra, Mícheál|
De Bruin, M
|Citation:||de Barra M, Scott C, Johnston M, De Bruin M, Scott N, Matheson C, Bond C & Watson M (2019) Do pharmacy intervention reports adequately describe their interventions? A template for intervention description and replication analysis of reports included in a systematic review. BMJ Open, 9 (12), Art. No.: e025511. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025511|
|Abstract:||Introduction Scientific progress and translation of evidence into practice is impeded by poorly described interventions. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) was developed to specify the minimal intervention elements that should be reported. Objectives (1) To assess the extent to which outpatient pharmacy interventions were adequately reported. (2) To examine the dimension(s) across which reporting quality varies. (3) To examine trial characteristics that predict better reporting. Methods The sample comprised 86 randomised controlled trials identified in a Cochrane review of the effectiveness of pharmacist interventions on patient health outcomes. Duplicate, independent application of a modified 15-item TIDieR checklist was undertaken to assess the intervention reporting. The reporting/non-reporting of TIDieR items was analysed with principal component analysis to evaluate the dimensionality of reporting quality and regression analyses to assess predictors of reporting quality Results In total, 422 (40%) TIDieR items were fully reported, 395 (38%) were partially reported and 231 (22%) were not reported. A further 242 items were deemed not applicable to the specific trials. Reporting quality loaded on one component which accounted for 26% of the variance in TIDieR scores. More recent trials reported a slightly greater number of TIDieR items (0.07 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.13) additional TIDieR items per year of publication). Trials reported an 0.09 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.14) additional TIDieR items per unit increase in impact factor (IF) of the journal in which the main report was published. Conclusions Most trials lacked adequate intervention reporting. This diminished the applied and scientific value of their research. The standard of intervention reporting is, however, gradually increasing and appears somewhat better in journals with higher IFs. The use of the TIDieR checklist to improve reporting could enhance the utility and replicability of trials, and reduce research waste.|
|Rights:||© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.|
|e025511.full.pdf||Fulltext - Published Version||393.15 kB||Adobe PDF||View/Open|
This item is protected by original copyright
A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.