Premium
Subsequent full publication of qualitative studies presented at United Kingdom Royal College of Nursing Research Conference 2015 and 2016: A follow‐up study
Author(s) -
Toews Ingrid,
Nyirenda John L. Z.,
Stadelmaier Julia,
Schwarzer Guido,
Noyes Jane,
Booth Andrew,
Lewin Simon,
Meerpohl Joerg J.
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
research synthesis methods
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.376
H-Index - 35
eISSN - 1759-2887
pISSN - 1759-2879
DOI - 10.1002/jrsm.1534
Subject(s) - medicine , publication bias , qualitative research , medline , cohort study , research design , family medicine , confidence interval , social science , political science , sociology , law
A considerable proportion of quantitative research remains unpublished once completed. Little research has documented non‐dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. This study aimed to generate evidence on the extent of non‐dissemination in qualitative research. We followed a cohort of qualitative studies presented as conference abstracts to ascertain their subsequent publication status. We searched for subsequent full publication in MEDLINE, in the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature and in Google Scholar. We matched abstracts to subsequent publications according to authors, method of data collection and phenomenon of interest. Fisher's exact test was calculated to examine associations between study characteristics and publication. Factors potentially associated with time to publication were evaluated with Cox regression analysis. For 91 of 270 included abstracts (33.70%; 95% CI 28.09%–39.68%), no full publication was identified. Factors that were found to be associated with subsequent full publication were oral presentation (OR 4.62; 95% CI 2.43–8.94) and university affiliation (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.05–3.66). Compared to oral presentations, studies presented as posters took longer time to reach full publication (hazard ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.21–0.58). This study shows that it was not possible to retrieve a full publication for over one‐third of abstracts. Our findings suggest that where this non‐dissemination is systematic, it may lead to distortions of the qualitative evidence‐base for decision‐making through dissemination bias. Our findings are congruent with those of other studies. Further research might investigate non‐dissemination of qualitative studies in other disciplines to consolidate our findings.