Selective outcome reporting in trials of behavioural health interventions in health psychology and behavioural medicine journals: a review.

IF 6.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Karen Matvienko-Sikar, Jen O'Shea, Stephen Kennedy, Siobhan D Thomas, Kerry Avery, Molly Byrne, Sheena McHugh, Daryl B O' Connor, Ian J Saldanha, Valerie Smith, Elaine Toomey, Kerry Dwan, Jamie J Kirkham
{"title":"Selective outcome reporting in trials of behavioural health interventions in health psychology and behavioural medicine journals: a review.","authors":"Karen Matvienko-Sikar, Jen O'Shea, Stephen Kennedy, Siobhan D Thomas, Kerry Avery, Molly Byrne, Sheena McHugh, Daryl B O' Connor, Ian J Saldanha, Valerie Smith, Elaine Toomey, Kerry Dwan, Jamie J Kirkham","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2024.2367613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Selective outcome reporting can result in overestimation of treatment effects, research waste, and reduced openness and transparency. This review aimed to examine selective outcome reporting in trials of behavioural health interventions and determine potential outcome reporting bias. A review of nine health psychology and behavioural medicine journals was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials of behavioural health interventions published since 2019. Discrepancies in outcome reporting were observed in 90% of the 29 trials with corresponding registrations/protocols. Discrepancies included 72% of trials omitting prespecified outcomes; 55% of trials introduced new outcomes. Thirty-eight percent of trials omitted prespecified <i>and</i> introduced new outcomes. Three trials (10%) downgraded primary outcomes in registrations/protocols to secondary outcomes in final reports; downgraded outcomes were not statistically significant in two trials. Five trials (17%) upgraded secondary outcomes to primary outcomes; upgraded outcomes were statistically significant in all trials. In final reports, three trials (7%) omitted outcomes from the methods section; three trials (7%) introduced new outcomes in results that were not in the methods. These findings indicate that selective outcome reporting is a problem in behavioural health intervention trials. Journal- and trialist-level approaches are needed to minimise selective outcome reporting in health psychology and behavioural medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2024.2367613","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Selective outcome reporting can result in overestimation of treatment effects, research waste, and reduced openness and transparency. This review aimed to examine selective outcome reporting in trials of behavioural health interventions and determine potential outcome reporting bias. A review of nine health psychology and behavioural medicine journals was conducted to identify randomised controlled trials of behavioural health interventions published since 2019. Discrepancies in outcome reporting were observed in 90% of the 29 trials with corresponding registrations/protocols. Discrepancies included 72% of trials omitting prespecified outcomes; 55% of trials introduced new outcomes. Thirty-eight percent of trials omitted prespecified and introduced new outcomes. Three trials (10%) downgraded primary outcomes in registrations/protocols to secondary outcomes in final reports; downgraded outcomes were not statistically significant in two trials. Five trials (17%) upgraded secondary outcomes to primary outcomes; upgraded outcomes were statistically significant in all trials. In final reports, three trials (7%) omitted outcomes from the methods section; three trials (7%) introduced new outcomes in results that were not in the methods. These findings indicate that selective outcome reporting is a problem in behavioural health intervention trials. Journal- and trialist-level approaches are needed to minimise selective outcome reporting in health psychology and behavioural medicine.

健康心理学和行为医学期刊对行为健康干预试验结果的选择性报告:综述。
选择性结果报告可能会导致治疗效果被高估、研究浪费以及公开性和透明度降低。本综述旨在研究行为健康干预试验中的选择性结果报告,并确定潜在的结果报告偏差。我们对九种健康心理学和行为医学期刊进行了回顾,以确定自2019年以来发表的行为健康干预随机对照试验。在29项有相应注册/方案的试验中,90%的试验结果报告存在差异。差异包括72%的试验遗漏了预先指定的结果;55%的试验引入了新的结果。38%的试验遗漏了预先指定的结果并引入了新的结果。三项试验(10%)将登记/方案中的主要结果降级为最终报告中的次要结果;在两项试验中,降级结果没有统计学意义。五项试验(17%)将次要结果升级为主要结果;在所有试验中,升级后的结果均具有统计学意义。在最终报告中,有三项试验(7%)遗漏了方法部分的结果;有三项试验(7%)在结果中引入了方法中没有的新结果。这些发现表明,选择性结果报告是行为健康干预试验中的一个问题。需要在期刊和试验者层面采取相应措施,尽量减少健康心理学和行为医学中的选择性结果报告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Psychology Review
Health Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信