Report on methodological quality assessment of primary care and general practice research in China in 2021
Background: As China advances healthcare reforms, research output in general practice and primary care has rapidly expanded in recent years. However, the methodological quality of this literature remains unclear. Objective: This study evaluates the methodological quality of representative quantitati...
Saved in:
| Format: | Article |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
KeAi Communications Co., Ltd.
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Chinese General Practice Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950559324000488 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Background: As China advances healthcare reforms, research output in general practice and primary care has rapidly expanded in recent years. However, the methodological quality of this literature remains unclear. Objective: This study evaluates the methodological quality of representative quantitative studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines published by Chinese researchers in the field of general practice and primary care in 2021, with the aim of providing an overview of methodological standards in this field. Methods: From a pool of 3,122 papers collected in the Primary Care and General Practice Research Paper Productivity Report in China in 2021, 449 representative studies were sampled. A team of 22 researchers specializing in public health and general practice, from various institutions, assessed the methodological quality of 320 papers (71.3 %) using six design-specific tools (for cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, pre- and post-intervention studies, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines). Researchers worked in pairs under the supervision of an expert in evidence-based methodology, and descriptive statistics were used to present quality assessment results. Results: In 114 cross-sectional studies, common methodological issues were identified in “whether the source population was representative of the study's target population” (41.2 %), “whether the reliability and validity of the survey instrument could be conclusively demonstrated” (32.5 %), and “whether the survey is clinically meaningful” (26.3 %). Among 25 cohort studies, quality issues were more concentrated in the areas of “whether the cohort was adequately followed up” (44.0 %) and “whether the co-intervention was similar among groups” (56.0 %). Of the 34 pre and post-intervention studies, quality issues were mostly found in the areas of “whether the target outcome was measured multiple times before and after the intervention” (97.1 %), “whether the sample size was large enough to generate confidence in the study results” (82.4 %), and “whether the study participants were representative of the eligible population” (61.8 %). Of the 122 randomized controlled trials, quality concerns were mostly in the areas of “blinding of different stakeholders” (25.4 %-61.5 %), “adequate concealment of random allocation” (41.8 %), and “other risks of bias” (72.1 %). Among the 19 systematic reviews, quality issues were mostly found in the areas “is the source of funding for the included studies reported” (100.0 %), “were the methods of the review developed before the start of the review” (94.7 %), “was heterogeneity reasonably discussed and explained” (84.2 %), and “was the risk of bias of individual studies considered” (84.2 %). Finally, the quality of all six clinical guidelines/consensus was rated low. Conclusion: Overall, methodological quality remains limited in recent Chinese research in general practice and primary care, especially in cross-sectional studies, pre- and post-intervention studies, randomized controlled trials, and clinical guidelines. This highlights an urgent need for comprehensive research training, a stronger emphasis on evidence-based reporting standards, and the development of pragmatic guidelines in this field. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2950-5593 |