نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 کارشناسی ارشد، کمیته تحقیقات دانشجویی، گروه مدیکال ژورنالیسم، دانشکده پیراپزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز، شیراز، ایران

2 استادیار پرستاری، مرکز تحقیقات مراقبت‌های روان جامعه‌نگر، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز، شیراز، ایران

3 مربی سلامت و رسانه، گروه ژورنالیزم پزشکی، دانشکده پیراپزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز، شیراز، ایران

4 دکتری، گروه ژورنالیزم پزشکی، دانشکده پیراپزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی شیراز، شیراز، ایران

10.30476/smsj.2021.84829.1096

چکیده

مقدمه: مطالعات کیفی در جهان از رشد روزافزونی برخوردار بوده اند و گایدلاینی که این مقالات را ارزیابی می کنند، چک لیست کورک می باشد. در مطالعاتی که انجام شده، تحقیقات کیفی در حوزه های غیر پرستاری یا پژوهشهای کمّی با گایدلاینهای استاندارد مقایسه شده اند، اما مطالعه ای که به بررسی تطبیقی مطالعات کیفی پرستاری با گایدلاین کورک بپردازند موجود نمی باشند. در همین راستا مطالعه حاضر پی ریزی شد.
روش‌ها: مطالعه حاضر از نوع توصیفی و بر روی مقالات کیفی سالهای 1395 تا 1397 انجام شد. برای جمع آوری اطلاعات از پرسشنامه اطلاعات دموگرافیکی و چک لیست کورک (32 آیتم) استفاده شد. داده ها با استفاده از نرم افزار SPSS ورژن 16 تجزیه و تحلیل شدند.
یافته ها: نتایج حاکی از آن بودند که اکثر گویه ها در مقالات بررسی شده، با گایدلاین مطابقت داشتند. در مقایسه مقالات در مجلات با زبان انگلیسی و فارسی، در سه سال متفاوت، و تیپهای دانشگاهی متفاوت مشخص شد که رعایت برخی از گویه ها (10 و 15 و 18 و25 و28 و 29 و 30 و 31) و حیطه ها (حیطه 1) متفاوت بوده است.
نتیجه گیری: رعایت نشدن برخی از گویه ها در مقالات کیفی منتشر شده در مجلات ایران این نکته را به سردبیران، نویسندگان و محققین خاطرنشان می سازد که بایستی با دقت بیشتری و بر اساس استانداردهای موجود عمل نمایند تا نتایج مطالعات از اعتبار و ارزش علمی جهانی برخوردار شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Adherence to the COREQ Guideline in Reporting Qualitative Studies Published in Iranian Nursing Journals in 2016-2018

نویسندگان [English]

  • Fatemeh Haghnejad 1
  • Azita Jaberi 2
  • Behrooz Astaneh 3
  • Pooneh Sarvravan 4

1 M.Sc., Student research committee, Department of Medical Journalism, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Community Based Psychiatric Care Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

3 Instructor, Health and Media Instructor, Department of Medical Journalism, School of Paramedical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

4 Ph.D., Department of Medical Journalism, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Qualitative studies in the world have been growing and COREQ is the guideline that evaluates these articles. Earlier studies have compared non-nursing qualitative research or quantitative research with standard guidelines, but, to the best of researcher’s knowledge, no comparative study of qualitative nursing studies with COREQ is available. Therefore, the present study was designed to fill this gap.
Methods: This descriptive study was performed on qualitative articles from 2016 to 2018. Demographic information questionnaire and COREQ checklist (32 items) were used for data collection. Data were analyzed using SPSS software version 16.
Results: The results indicated that most of the items in the reviewed articles were in line with the guidelines. Comparing articles in English and Farsi journals, in three different years, and different academic types showed that adherence to some items (10, 15, 18, 25, 28, 29, 30, and 31) and domain 1 was different.
Conclusion: Not complying with the COREQ items in the qualitative articles published in Iranian journals suggests this point to editors, writers, and researchers that they should consider available standards more precisely to obtain scientific and authentic results.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Qualitative studies
  • Guideline
  • medical journalism
  • Nursing
  • Iran
  1. Streubert, HJ., Carpenter, DR. Qualitative Research in Nursing: Advancing the humanistic Imperative. Wolters Kluwer health: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2011.
  2. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine. 2014;89(9):1245-51.
  3. Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Simera I, Wager E. Guidelines for reporting health research: a user's manual: Wiley Online Library; 2014.
  4. Wu S, Wyant DC, Fraser MW. Author guidelines for manuscripts reporting on qualitative research. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research. 2016;7(2):405-25.
  5. Jin Y, Sanger N, Shams I, Luo C, Shahid H, Li G, et al. Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years?–A systematic review of reviews: an update. Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare. 2018;11:495-510.
  6. Davidoff F, Batalden P, Stevens D, Ogrinc G, Mooney S. Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project. BMJ Quality & Safety. 2008;17(Suppl 1):i3-i9.
  7. Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF. Improving the reporting of randomised trials: the CONSORT Statement and beyond. Statistics in medicine. 2012;31(25):2985-97.
  8. Sharifnia, H., Nazari, R., Seyedi, J. Essentials of nursing research: Methods, Appraisals, and Utilization. Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T., editors. Tehran: Hakim Hidaji; 2010 (persian).
  9. Altman DG, Simera I, Hoey J, Moher D, Schulz K. EQUATOR: reporting guidelines for health research. The Lancet. 2008;371(9619):1149-50.
  10. Flemming K, Booth A, Hannes K, Cargo M, Noyes J. Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group guidance series—paper 6: reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2018;97:79-85.
  11. Ajduković M. How to report on qualitative research? Guidelines for researchers, mentors and reviewers. Ljetopis socijalnog rada. 2015;21(3):345-66.
  12. Simera I, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF, Hoey J. Guidelines for reporting health research: the EQUATOR network's survey of guideline authors. PLoS Medicine. 2008;5(6):e139.
  13. Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. European journal of clinical investigation. 2010;40(1):35-53.
  14. Salzmann-Erikson M. IMPAD-22: A checklist for authors of qualitative nursing research manuscripts. Nurse education today. 2013;33(11):1295-300.
  15. Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Noyes J, Harris J, Tong A. COREQ (consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies). In: Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Simera I, Wager E, editors. Guidelines for reporting health research: A user's manual: Wiley; 2014. p. 214-26.
  16. Hannes K, Heyvaert M, Slegers K, Vandenbrande S, Van Nuland M. Exploring the potential for a consolidated standard for reporting guidelines for qualitative research: An argument Delphi approach. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 2015; 14(4): 1609406915611528.
  17. Abrams P, Deem R, Finch J, Rock P. Practice and progress: British sociology 1950-1980: Routledge; 2018.
  18. Aghazadeh-Attari J, Mobaraki K, Ahmadzadeh J, Mansorian B, Mohebbi I. Quality of observational studies in prestigious journals of occupational medicine and health based on Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: a cross-sectional study. BMC research notes. 2018;11(1):266.
  19. Ahmadzadeh J, Rezaeian S, Mobaraki K. The quality of the reporting of randomized controlled trials after CONSORT statement in the prestigious journals. Shiraz E-Medical Journal. 1970;14(2):130-8.
  20. Beydokhti H, Riahinia N. The role of peer review on the improvement of the articles published in the Journal of Birjand University of Medical Sciences. 2014.
  21. Cevallos M, Egger M, Moher D. STROBE (STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology). Guidelines for reporting health research: a user's manual. 2014:169-79.
  22. Fung AE, Palanki R, Bakri SJ, Depperschmidt E, Gibson A. Applying the CONSORT and STROBE statements to evaluate the reporting quality of neovascular age-related macular degeneration studies. Ophthalmology. 2009; 116(2): 286-96.
  23. Hirst A, Altman DG. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PloS one. 2012;7(4):e35621.
  24. Vandenbroucke JP. Strega, Strobe, Stard, Squire, Moose, Prisma, Gnosis, Trend, Orion, Coreq, Quorom, Remark… and Consort: for whom does the guideline toll? Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2009;62(6):594-6.
  25. Al-Moghrabi D, Tsichlaki A, Alkadi S, Fleming PS. How well are dental qualitative studies involving interviews and focus groups reported? Journal of dentistry. 2019;84:44-8.
  26. Sarveravan P, Astaneh B, Shokrpour N. Adherence to the CONSORT Statement in the reporting of randomized controlled trials on pharmacological interventions published in iranian medical journals. Iranian journal of medical sciences. 2017;42(6):532-43.
  27. Shaghaghian, S., & Astaneh, B. (2020). Adherence to the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology statement in observational studies published in Iranian medical journals. Iranian journal of public health, 49(8), 1520-9.
  28. Hoppin Jr FG. How I review an original scientific article. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2002;166(8):1019-23.
  29. Hale C, Griffiths P. Ensuring the reporting quality of publications in nursing journals: A shared responsibility? International journal of nursing studies. 2015;52(6):1025.
  30. Anderson C. Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. American journal of pharmaceutical education. 2010;74(8):141.
  31. Yarcheski A, Mahon NE, Yarcheski TJ. A descriptive study of research published in scientific nursing journals from 1985 to 2010. International journal of nursing studies. 2012;49(9):1112-21.
  32. Irani M, BASHTIAN MH, Khadivzadeh T, Ebrahimipour H, NEKAH SMA. Weaknesses in the Reporting of Cross-sectional Studies in Accordance with the STROBE Report (The Case of Congenital Anomaly among Infants in Iran): A Review Article. Iranian journal of public health. 2018;47(12):1796.