Abstract
Objective
Reporting of the content and delivery characteristics of comparator interventions in published articles is often incomplete. This study examines the feasibility and validity of two methods for collecting additional information on comparator interventions from trial authors.
Methods & Measures
In a systematic review of smoking cessation trials (IC-Smoke), all trial authors were asked to send unpublished comparator intervention materials and complete a specially-developed comparator intervention checklist. All published and additionally obtained information from authors were coded for behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and other characteristics (type of comparator, provider, provider training, delivery mode and treatment duration). To assess representativeness, we assessed the amount of additional information obtained from trial authors compared with the amount that was published. We examined known-group and convergent validity of comparator intervention data when using only published or also unpublished information.
Results
Additional information were obtained from 91/136 (67%) of trial authors. Representativeness, known-group and convergent validity improved substantially based on the data collected by means of the comparator intervention checklist, but not by requesting authors to send any existing comparator materials.
Conclusions
Requesting authors for unpublished comparator intervention data, using specially-developed checklists and unpublished materials, substantially improves the quality of data available for systematic reviews.
Reporting of the content and delivery characteristics of comparator interventions in published articles is often incomplete. This study examines the feasibility and validity of two methods for collecting additional information on comparator interventions from trial authors.
Methods & Measures
In a systematic review of smoking cessation trials (IC-Smoke), all trial authors were asked to send unpublished comparator intervention materials and complete a specially-developed comparator intervention checklist. All published and additionally obtained information from authors were coded for behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and other characteristics (type of comparator, provider, provider training, delivery mode and treatment duration). To assess representativeness, we assessed the amount of additional information obtained from trial authors compared with the amount that was published. We examined known-group and convergent validity of comparator intervention data when using only published or also unpublished information.
Results
Additional information were obtained from 91/136 (67%) of trial authors. Representativeness, known-group and convergent validity improved substantially based on the data collected by means of the comparator intervention checklist, but not by requesting authors to send any existing comparator materials.
Conclusions
Requesting authors for unpublished comparator intervention data, using specially-developed checklists and unpublished materials, substantially improves the quality of data available for systematic reviews.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 435-451 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Psychology & Health |
| Volume | 39 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| Early online date | 23 Jul 2022 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2024 |
Bibliographical note
FundingThis work was funded by Cancer Research UK (application number C50862/A18446).
Keywords
- reporting
- comparator
- control group
- validity
- Systematic review
- behaviour change techniques
Access to Document
- Javornik_etal_PaH_Pragmatic_Evaluation_of_Methods-for
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.