Methodology and reporting quality of 544 studies related to ageing: a continued discussion in setting priorities for ageing research in Africa

M. Kalu, Chukwuebuka Okeke, Ernest C. Nwachukwu, Augustine C Okoh, O. Akinrolie, C. Ezulike, Henrietha Adandom, O. K. Onyeso, Joesph Egbumike, Funmibi D Olatunji, E. P. Ugwuodo, B. Ojembe, Israel I Adandom, Akaolisa J Anagbaso, Omobolade M Akinrolie, E. Anieto, P. Ekoh, J. Makanjuola, M. Ibekaku, A. Iwuagwu, Chukwuebuka P Onyekere, Kelechi J Muomaife, Chinonyerem Nkoroh, Adaobi Odega, C. M. Ogbueche, C. Omeje, Chisom I Onyekwuluje, O. Oyinlola, D. Rayner, Immaculata A Ugwuja
{"title":"Methodology and reporting quality of 544 studies related to ageing: a continued discussion in setting priorities for ageing research in Africa","authors":"M. Kalu, Chukwuebuka Okeke, Ernest C. Nwachukwu, Augustine C Okoh, O. Akinrolie, C. Ezulike, Henrietha Adandom, O. K. Onyeso, Joesph Egbumike, Funmibi D Olatunji, E. P. Ugwuodo, B. Ojembe, Israel I Adandom, Akaolisa J Anagbaso, Omobolade M Akinrolie, E. Anieto, P. Ekoh, J. Makanjuola, M. Ibekaku, A. Iwuagwu, Chukwuebuka P Onyekere, Kelechi J Muomaife, Chinonyerem Nkoroh, Adaobi Odega, C. M. Ogbueche, C. Omeje, Chisom I Onyekwuluje, O. Oyinlola, D. Rayner, Immaculata A Ugwuja","doi":"10.52872/001c.36188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The quality assessment provides information on the overall strength of evidence and methodological quality of a research design, highlighting the level of confidence the reader should place on the findings for decision making. This paper aimed to assess the quality (methodology and quality of reporting) of ageing studies in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This paper is the second of a Four-Part Series paper of a previous systematic mapping review of peer-reviewed literature on ageing studies conducted in SSA. We updated the literature search to include additional 32 articles, a total of 544 articles included in this paper. Downs & Black checklist, Case Report guidelines checklist, the 45-items Lundgren et al. checklist, and the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool were used to assess the methodological quality of quantitative, case reports, qualitative, and mixed-method studies. Quality assessment was piloted and conducted in pairs for each study type. Depending on the checklist, each study was classified as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Of the 544 articles, we performed the quality assessment of a total of 451 quantitative studies [Randomized control trials (RCTs) and pre-post (n=15), longitudinal (n=122), case-control (n=15) and cross-sectional (n=300); 4 case reports, 74 qualitative and 15 mixed-method studies. Only 20.4% (n=111) articles were of high quality [one RCT, 27 longitudinal, 4 case-control, 48 cross-sectional studies, 19 qualitative, and 12 mixed-method studies]. The remaining 433 were rated as moderate quality (n=292, 53.7%), fair quality (n = 96, 17.7%) and poor quality (n = 45, 8.2%). Most (80%) quantitative articles’ sample size is small, resulting in insufficient power to detect a clinically or significant important effect. Three-quarter (75%) of the qualitative studies did not report their research team characteristics and a reflexivity component of the 45-items Lundgren et al. checklist. Mixed-method studies with low quality did not report the qualitative studies properly. We conclude that the methodological and quality reporting of published studies on ageing in SSA show variable quality, albeit primarily moderate quality, against high quality. Studies with a large sample size are recommended, and qualitative researchers should provide a section on research team members’ characteristics and reflexivity in their paper or as an appendix.","PeriodicalId":73758,"journal":{"name":"Journal of global health economics and policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of global health economics and policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52872/001c.36188","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The quality assessment provides information on the overall strength of evidence and methodological quality of a research design, highlighting the level of confidence the reader should place on the findings for decision making. This paper aimed to assess the quality (methodology and quality of reporting) of ageing studies in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). This paper is the second of a Four-Part Series paper of a previous systematic mapping review of peer-reviewed literature on ageing studies conducted in SSA. We updated the literature search to include additional 32 articles, a total of 544 articles included in this paper. Downs & Black checklist, Case Report guidelines checklist, the 45-items Lundgren et al. checklist, and the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool were used to assess the methodological quality of quantitative, case reports, qualitative, and mixed-method studies. Quality assessment was piloted and conducted in pairs for each study type. Depending on the checklist, each study was classified as excellent, good, fair, or poor. Of the 544 articles, we performed the quality assessment of a total of 451 quantitative studies [Randomized control trials (RCTs) and pre-post (n=15), longitudinal (n=122), case-control (n=15) and cross-sectional (n=300); 4 case reports, 74 qualitative and 15 mixed-method studies. Only 20.4% (n=111) articles were of high quality [one RCT, 27 longitudinal, 4 case-control, 48 cross-sectional studies, 19 qualitative, and 12 mixed-method studies]. The remaining 433 were rated as moderate quality (n=292, 53.7%), fair quality (n = 96, 17.7%) and poor quality (n = 45, 8.2%). Most (80%) quantitative articles’ sample size is small, resulting in insufficient power to detect a clinically or significant important effect. Three-quarter (75%) of the qualitative studies did not report their research team characteristics and a reflexivity component of the 45-items Lundgren et al. checklist. Mixed-method studies with low quality did not report the qualitative studies properly. We conclude that the methodological and quality reporting of published studies on ageing in SSA show variable quality, albeit primarily moderate quality, against high quality. Studies with a large sample size are recommended, and qualitative researchers should provide a section on research team members’ characteristics and reflexivity in their paper or as an appendix.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
544项老龄问题研究的方法和报告质量:继续讨论确定非洲老龄问题研究优先事项
质量评估提供了关于研究设计的总体证据强度和方法质量的信息,强调了读者对决策结果的信心水平。本文旨在评估撒哈拉以南非洲老龄化研究的质量(报告方法和质量)。这篇论文是之前在SSA进行的关于衰老研究的同行评审文献的系统映射综述的四部分系列论文的第二篇。我们更新了文献检索,增加了32篇文章,共544篇文章被纳入本文。Downs&Black检查表、病例报告指南检查表、Lundgren等人的45项检查表和混合方法评估工具用于评估定量、病例报告、定性和混合方法研究的方法学质量。对每种研究类型进行了质量评估试点并成对进行。根据检查表,每项研究都被分为优秀、良好、一般或较差。在544篇文章中,我们对总共451项定量研究进行了质量评估[随机对照试验(RCTs)和术前(n=15),纵向(n=122),病例对照(n=15和横断面(n=300);4份病例报告,74份定性和15份混合方法研究。只有20.4%(n=111)的文章是高质量的[一项随机对照试验,27项纵向研究,4项病例对照研究,48项横断面研究,19项定性研究和12项混合方法研究]。其余433篇被评为中等质量(n=292,53.7%)、中等质量(n=96,17.7%)和差质量(n=45,8.2%)。大多数(80%)定量文章的样本量较小,导致检测临床或显著重要效果的能力不足。四分之三(75%)的定性研究没有报告其研究团队特征和Lundgren等人的45项检查表中的反射性成分。低质量的混合方法研究没有正确报告定性研究。我们的结论是,已发表的SSA老龄化研究的方法和质量报告显示,与高质量相比,质量参差不齐,尽管主要是中等质量。建议进行大样本量的研究,定性研究人员应在论文中或附录中提供一节关于研究团队成员特征和自反性的内容。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The present value of human life losses associated with COVID-19 in South Africa The approach taken by Canada’s province of Nova Scotia to ban the sale of flavoured electronic cigarettes Use of population indices in cancer research: a scoping review Shaping market access for sustainable production of vaccines in Africa Using mobile health to strengthen the communication skills for effective delivery of health information in Nepal: A qualitative study of the perspectives of Female Community Health Volunteers
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1