Reporting Guidelines for Community-Based Participatory Research Did Not Improve the Reporting Quality of Published Studies: A Systematic Review of Studies on Smoking Cessation

Daisuke Kato, Yuki Kataoka, Erfen Gustiawan Suwangto, Makoto Kaneko, Hideki Wakabayashi, Daisuke Son and Ichiro Kawachi
Additional contact information
Daisuke Kato: Department of Family Medicine, Mie University Graduate School of Medicine, Mie 514-0104, Japan
Yuki Kataoka: Hospital Care Research Unit and Department of Respiratory Medicine, Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center, Hyogo 660-8550, Japan
Erfen Gustiawan Suwangto: Institute for Networking Development of Primary Care Clinics, Department of Medical Ethics, Law, and Primary Care, Atma Jaya Catholic University of Indonesia, Jakarta 12930, Indonesia
Makoto Kaneko: Department of Family and Community Medicine, Hamamatsu University School of Medicine, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka 431-3125, Japan
Hideki Wakabayashi: Department of Community Medicine, Kameyama, Mie University School of Medicine, Mie 514-0104, Japan
Daisuke Son: Department of Medical Education Studies, International Research Center for Medical Education, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo 113-8654, Japan
Ichiro Kawachi: Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard School of Public Health, Cambridge, MA 02115, USA

IJERPH, 2020, vol. 17, issue 11, 1-9

Abstract: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of a 2010 community-based participatory research (CBPR) reporting guideline on the quality of reporting a CBPR on smoking cessation. We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases and included articles published up to December 2019 (PROSPERO: CRD42019111668). We assessed reporting quality using the 13-item checklist. Of the 80 articles identified, 42 (53%) were published after 2010. The overall reporting quality before and after 2010 was poor and did not differ significantly (mean difference: 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.21 to 1.53). The total reporting scores of the studies did not differ significantly according to the effect size of the intervention (beta coefficient: −2.86, 95% CI: −5.77 to 0.04). This study demonstrates the need to improve the quality of reporting CBPRs. We recommend that journal editors endorse the CBPR reporting guideline to encourage its use by more researchers.

Keywords: community-based participatory research; smoking cessation; reporting guideline; literature review (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/3898/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/11/3898/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:11:p:3898-:d:365344

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().