Publication bias in qualitative research: what becomes of qualitative research presented at conferences?


Petticrew, M; Egan, M; Thomson, H; Hamilton, V; Kunkler, R; Roberts, H; (2008) Publication bias in qualitative research: what becomes of qualitative research presented at conferences? Journal of epidemiology and community health, 62 (6). pp. 552-4. ISSN 0143-005X DOI: 10.1136/jech.2006.059394

Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Less than half of studies presented at conferences remain unpublished two years later, and these studies differ systematically from those that are published. In particular, the unpublished studies are less likely to report statistically significant findings, and this introduces publication bias. This has been well documented for quantitative studies, but has never been explored in relation to qualitative research. METHODS: We reviewed the abstracts of qualitative research presented at the 1998 (n = 110) and 1999 (n = 114) British Sociological Association (BSA) Medical Sociology meetings, and attempted to locate those studies in databases or by contacting authors. We also appraised the quality of reporting in each abstract. RESULTS: We found an overall publication rate for these qualitative studies of 44.2%. This is nearly identical to the publication rate for quantitative research. The quality of reporting of study methods and findings in the abstract was positively related to the likelihood of publication. CONCLUSION: Qualitative research is as likely to remain unpublished as quantitative research. Moreover, non-publication appears to be related to the quality of reporting of methodological information in the original abstract, perhaps because this is a proxy for a study with clear objectives and clear findings. This suggests a mechanism by which "qualitative publication bias" might work: qualitative studies that do not show clear, or striking, or easily described findings may simply disappear from view. One implication of this is that, as with quantitative research, systematic reviews of qualitative studies may be biased if they rely only on published papers.

Item Type: Article
Faculty and Department: Faculty of Public Health and Policy > Dept of Social and Environmental Health Research
Research Centre: Centre for Global Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs)
PubMed ID: 18477755
Web of Science ID: 255805200014
URI: http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/7684

Statistics


Download activity - last 12 months
Downloads since deposit
0Downloads
272Hits
Accesses by country - last 12 months
Accesses by referrer - last 12 months
Impact and interest
Additional statistics for this record are available via IRStats2

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item