Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Aug 3;11(8):e0159290.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159290. eCollection 2016.

Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey

Ingrid Toews  1 , Claire Glenton  2 , Simon Lewin  3 , Rigmor C Berg  4 , Jane Noyes  5 , Andrew Booth  6 , Ana Marusic  7 , Mario Malicki  7 , Heather M Munthe-Kaas  8 , Joerg J Meerpohl  9
Affiliations

Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey

Ingrid Toews et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention.

Methods: A survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling.

Results: 1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers "(strongly) agreed" that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care.

Conclusions: The proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: IT, CG, RCB, AB, MM, AM, HMK, JM declare to have no competing interests in relation to this work. Simon Lewin is an editor for the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. This does not alter the authors' adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

References

    1. Bohren MA, Hunter EC, Munthe-Kaas HM, Souza JP, Vogel JP, Gulmezoglu AM. Facilitators and barriers to facility-based delivery in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative evidence synthesis. Reprod Health. 2014;11(1):71 doi: 10.1186/742-4755-11-71 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gulmezoglu AM, Chandler J, Shepperd S, Pantoja T. Reviews of qualitative evidence: a new milestone for Cochrane. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2013;11:ED000073 doi: org/10.1002/14651858.ED000073 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lewin S, Bosch-Capblanch X, Oliver S, Akl EA, Vist GE, Lavis JN, et al. Guidance for Evidence-Informed Policies about Health Systems: Assessing How Much Confidence to Place in the Research Evidence. PLoS Medicine. 2012;9(3):e1001187 doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001187 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Longworth L, Sculpher MJ, Bojke L, Tosh JC. Bridging the gap between methods research and the needs of policy makers: A review of the research priorities of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2011;27(02):180–7. - PubMed
    1. Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health field. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2005;10(suppl 1):6–20. - PubMed