Using the STROBE statement: survey findings emphasized the role of journals in enforcing reporting guidelines

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.019

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volume 116, December 2019, Pages 26-35

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.019 Get rights and content

Under a Creative Commons license

open access

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of the study was to identify factors affecting the use of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement, specifically authors’ attitudes toward and experiences with it.

Study Design and Setting

An online survey was distributed to authors of observational studies recruited via social media, personal network snowballing, and mass mailings using targeted search strategies. Data on demographics, awareness, motivators, and usage were collected in conjunction with a modified Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) scale on which confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed.

Results

One thousand fifteen participants completed the survey. Of these, 185 (18.2%) indicated they had never heard of STROBE nor used it previously, 195 (19.2%) had heard of it but never used it, and 635 (62.6%) had used it. Journals promoting STROBE were both key motivators and awareness mechanisms; peers and educational workshops were also important influencing factors to a lesser degree. The internal consistency of the modified UTAUT scale was strong (Cronbach's alpha = 0.94). CFA supported a four-factor model with 23 questions.

Conclusion

The endorsement of STROBE by journals is key to authors’ awareness and use of the guideline. We tested and validated our scale which can guide future research on reporting guidelines.

Keywords

Observational studies

Guidelines as topic

Epidemiologic research design

Information dissemination/methods

STROBE

Online survey

Scientific writing

Cited by (0)

: Authors' contributions: All authors have made substantive intellectual contributions to the development of the protocol and this manuscript. M.K.S. conceptualized the study and led the writing of the manuscript. D.H. led the supervision of the manuscript preparation. M.K.S. and L.B. managed survey recruitment. M.K.S., G.G., and R.R. assisted with all analyses. M.K.S. performed analyses. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

: Source of funding: This work was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 676207. Coauthor G.G. was supported by work from Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, Grant/Award Numbers: MTM2015-64465-C2-1-R, MDM-2014-0445.

: Ethics approval and consent to participate: Ethical approval was granted by the University of Split (2181-198-03-04-18-0010).

: Availability of data and material: The final R Markdown code used for the current study will be made available on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/2fkny/) and in the Zenodo repository in the Methods in Research on Research (MiRoR) community (https://zenodo.org/communities/miror/).

: Conflict of interest: M.K.S. works with the STROBE statement as a part of her doctoral studies. D.H., G.G., and E.W. provide support and mentoring as a part of the Methods in Research on Research (MiRoR) project. E.W. was a Fellow of the UK EQUATOR Centre which promotes the use of reporting guidelines (this was an unpaid position).