Reporting Quality of Social and Psychological Intervention Trials: A Systematic Review of Reporting Guidelines and Trial Publications

Sean P. Grant, Evan Mayo-Wilson, G. J. Melendez-Torres, Paul Montgomery

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background:Previous reviews show that reporting guidelines have improved the quality of trial reports in medicine, yet existing guidelines may not be fully suited for social and psychological intervention trials.Objective/Design:We conducted a two-part study that reviewed (1) reporting guidelines for and (2) the reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials.Data Sources:(1) To identify reporting guidelines, we systematically searched multiple electronic databases and reporting guideline registries. (2) To identify trials, we hand-searched 40 journals with the 10 highest impact factors in clinical psychology, criminology, education, and social work.Eligibility:(1) Reporting guidelines consisted of articles introducing a checklist of reporting standards relevant to social and psychological intervention trials. (2) Trials reported randomised experiments of complex interventions with psychological, social, or health outcomes.Results:(1) We identified 19 reporting guidelines that yielded 147 reporting standards relevant to social and psychological interventions. Social and behavioural science guidelines included 89 standards not found in CONSORT guidelines. However, CONSORT guidelines used more recommended techniques for development and dissemination compared to other guidelines. (2) Our review of trials (n = 239) revealed that many standards were poorly reported, such as identification as a randomised trial in titles (20% reported the information) and abstracts (55%); information about blinding (15%), sequence generation (23%), and allocation concealment (17%); and details about actual delivery of experimental (43%) and control interventions (34%), participant uptake (25%), and service environment (28%). Only 11 of 40 journals referenced reporting guidelines in "Instructions to Authors."Conclusion:Existing reporting guidelines have important limitations in content, development, and/or dissemination. Important details are routinely missing from trial publications; most leading journals in social and behavioural sciences do not ask authors to follow reporting standards. Findings demonstrate a need to develop a CONSORT extension with updated standards for social and psychological intervention trials.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere65442
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume8
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 29 2013
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

systematic review
Publications
Guidelines
Psychology
Behavioral Sciences
Social Sciences
Medicine
Education
Health
Criminology
Clinical Psychology
Information Storage and Retrieval
psychology
Social Work
Checklist
electronics
Registries
education
medicine
Experiments

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • General

Cite this

Reporting Quality of Social and Psychological Intervention Trials : A Systematic Review of Reporting Guidelines and Trial Publications. / Grant, Sean P.; Mayo-Wilson, Evan; Melendez-Torres, G. J.; Montgomery, Paul.

In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 8, No. 5, e65442, 29.05.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e3c05839d15a47d69fb0c83b7a38fb57,
title = "Reporting Quality of Social and Psychological Intervention Trials: A Systematic Review of Reporting Guidelines and Trial Publications",
abstract = "Background:Previous reviews show that reporting guidelines have improved the quality of trial reports in medicine, yet existing guidelines may not be fully suited for social and psychological intervention trials.Objective/Design:We conducted a two-part study that reviewed (1) reporting guidelines for and (2) the reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials.Data Sources:(1) To identify reporting guidelines, we systematically searched multiple electronic databases and reporting guideline registries. (2) To identify trials, we hand-searched 40 journals with the 10 highest impact factors in clinical psychology, criminology, education, and social work.Eligibility:(1) Reporting guidelines consisted of articles introducing a checklist of reporting standards relevant to social and psychological intervention trials. (2) Trials reported randomised experiments of complex interventions with psychological, social, or health outcomes.Results:(1) We identified 19 reporting guidelines that yielded 147 reporting standards relevant to social and psychological interventions. Social and behavioural science guidelines included 89 standards not found in CONSORT guidelines. However, CONSORT guidelines used more recommended techniques for development and dissemination compared to other guidelines. (2) Our review of trials (n = 239) revealed that many standards were poorly reported, such as identification as a randomised trial in titles (20{\%} reported the information) and abstracts (55{\%}); information about blinding (15{\%}), sequence generation (23{\%}), and allocation concealment (17{\%}); and details about actual delivery of experimental (43{\%}) and control interventions (34{\%}), participant uptake (25{\%}), and service environment (28{\%}). Only 11 of 40 journals referenced reporting guidelines in {"}Instructions to Authors.{"}Conclusion:Existing reporting guidelines have important limitations in content, development, and/or dissemination. Important details are routinely missing from trial publications; most leading journals in social and behavioural sciences do not ask authors to follow reporting standards. Findings demonstrate a need to develop a CONSORT extension with updated standards for social and psychological intervention trials.",
author = "Grant, {Sean P.} and Evan Mayo-Wilson and Melendez-Torres, {G. J.} and Paul Montgomery",
year = "2013",
month = "5",
day = "29",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0065442",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reporting Quality of Social and Psychological Intervention Trials

T2 - A Systematic Review of Reporting Guidelines and Trial Publications

AU - Grant, Sean P.

AU - Mayo-Wilson, Evan

AU - Melendez-Torres, G. J.

AU - Montgomery, Paul

PY - 2013/5/29

Y1 - 2013/5/29

N2 - Background:Previous reviews show that reporting guidelines have improved the quality of trial reports in medicine, yet existing guidelines may not be fully suited for social and psychological intervention trials.Objective/Design:We conducted a two-part study that reviewed (1) reporting guidelines for and (2) the reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials.Data Sources:(1) To identify reporting guidelines, we systematically searched multiple electronic databases and reporting guideline registries. (2) To identify trials, we hand-searched 40 journals with the 10 highest impact factors in clinical psychology, criminology, education, and social work.Eligibility:(1) Reporting guidelines consisted of articles introducing a checklist of reporting standards relevant to social and psychological intervention trials. (2) Trials reported randomised experiments of complex interventions with psychological, social, or health outcomes.Results:(1) We identified 19 reporting guidelines that yielded 147 reporting standards relevant to social and psychological interventions. Social and behavioural science guidelines included 89 standards not found in CONSORT guidelines. However, CONSORT guidelines used more recommended techniques for development and dissemination compared to other guidelines. (2) Our review of trials (n = 239) revealed that many standards were poorly reported, such as identification as a randomised trial in titles (20% reported the information) and abstracts (55%); information about blinding (15%), sequence generation (23%), and allocation concealment (17%); and details about actual delivery of experimental (43%) and control interventions (34%), participant uptake (25%), and service environment (28%). Only 11 of 40 journals referenced reporting guidelines in "Instructions to Authors."Conclusion:Existing reporting guidelines have important limitations in content, development, and/or dissemination. Important details are routinely missing from trial publications; most leading journals in social and behavioural sciences do not ask authors to follow reporting standards. Findings demonstrate a need to develop a CONSORT extension with updated standards for social and psychological intervention trials.

AB - Background:Previous reviews show that reporting guidelines have improved the quality of trial reports in medicine, yet existing guidelines may not be fully suited for social and psychological intervention trials.Objective/Design:We conducted a two-part study that reviewed (1) reporting guidelines for and (2) the reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials.Data Sources:(1) To identify reporting guidelines, we systematically searched multiple electronic databases and reporting guideline registries. (2) To identify trials, we hand-searched 40 journals with the 10 highest impact factors in clinical psychology, criminology, education, and social work.Eligibility:(1) Reporting guidelines consisted of articles introducing a checklist of reporting standards relevant to social and psychological intervention trials. (2) Trials reported randomised experiments of complex interventions with psychological, social, or health outcomes.Results:(1) We identified 19 reporting guidelines that yielded 147 reporting standards relevant to social and psychological interventions. Social and behavioural science guidelines included 89 standards not found in CONSORT guidelines. However, CONSORT guidelines used more recommended techniques for development and dissemination compared to other guidelines. (2) Our review of trials (n = 239) revealed that many standards were poorly reported, such as identification as a randomised trial in titles (20% reported the information) and abstracts (55%); information about blinding (15%), sequence generation (23%), and allocation concealment (17%); and details about actual delivery of experimental (43%) and control interventions (34%), participant uptake (25%), and service environment (28%). Only 11 of 40 journals referenced reporting guidelines in "Instructions to Authors."Conclusion:Existing reporting guidelines have important limitations in content, development, and/or dissemination. Important details are routinely missing from trial publications; most leading journals in social and behavioural sciences do not ask authors to follow reporting standards. Findings demonstrate a need to develop a CONSORT extension with updated standards for social and psychological intervention trials.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878455645&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84878455645&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0065442

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0065442

M3 - Article

C2 - 23734256

AN - SCOPUS:84878455645

VL - 8

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 5

M1 - e65442

ER -