Advanced search
1 file | 561.38 KB Add to list

Usefulness of applying research reporting guidelines as Writing Aid software : a crossover randomised controlled trial

(2019) BMJ OPEN. 9(11).
Author
Organization
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the intention of using a Writing Aid software, which integrates four research reporting guidelines (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-nutritional epidemiology) and their Elaboration & Explanation (E&E) documents during the write-up of research in Microsoft Word compared with current practices. Design: Two-arms crossover randomised controlled trial with no blinding and no washout period. Setting: Face-to-face or online sessions. Participants: 54 (28 in arm 1 and 26 in arm 2) doctoral arid postdoctoral researchers. Interventions: Reporting guidelines and their E&E document were randomly administered as Writing Aid or as Word documents in a single 30 min to 1 hour session, with a short break before crossing over to the other study intervention. Primary and secondary outcomes: Using the Technology Acceptance Model, we assessed the primary outcome: the difference in the mean of intention of use; and secondary outcomes: the difference in mean perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. The three outcomes were measured using questions with a 7-point Likert-scale. Secondary analysis using structural equation modelling (SEM) was applied to explore the relationships between the outcomes. Results: No significant difference in reported intention of use (mean difference and 95% CI 0.25 (-0.05 to 0.55), p=0.10), and perceived usefulness (mean difference and 95% CI 0.19 (-0.04 to 0.41), p=0.10). The Writing Aid performed significantly better than the word document on researchers' perceived ease of use (mean difference and 95% CI 0.59 (0.29 to 0.89), p<0.001). In the SEM analysis, participants' intention of using the tools was indirectly affected by perceived ease of use (beta 0.53 p=0.002). Conclusions: Despite no significant difference in the intention of use between the tools, administering reporting guidelines as Writing Aid is perceived as easier to use, offering a possibility to further explore its applicability to enhance reporting adherence.
Keywords
TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL, STROBE STATEMENT, EXPLANATION, EXTENSION

Downloads

  • e030943.full.pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 561.38 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Hawwash, Dana, et al. “Usefulness of Applying Research Reporting Guidelines as Writing Aid Software : A Crossover Randomised Controlled Trial.” BMJ OPEN, vol. 9, no. 11, 2019.
APA
Hawwash, D., Sharp, M. K., Argaw, A., Kolsteren, P., & Lachat, C. (2019). Usefulness of applying research reporting guidelines as Writing Aid software : a crossover randomised controlled trial. BMJ OPEN, 9(11).
Chicago author-date
Hawwash, Dana, Melissa K Sharp, Alemayehu Argaw, Patrick Kolsteren, and Carl Lachat. 2019. “Usefulness of Applying Research Reporting Guidelines as Writing Aid Software : A Crossover Randomised Controlled Trial.” BMJ OPEN 9 (11).
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Hawwash, Dana, Melissa K Sharp, Alemayehu Argaw, Patrick Kolsteren, and Carl Lachat. 2019. “Usefulness of Applying Research Reporting Guidelines as Writing Aid Software : A Crossover Randomised Controlled Trial.” BMJ OPEN 9 (11).
Vancouver
1.
Hawwash D, Sharp MK, Argaw A, Kolsteren P, Lachat C. Usefulness of applying research reporting guidelines as Writing Aid software : a crossover randomised controlled trial. BMJ OPEN. 2019;9(11).
IEEE
[1]
D. Hawwash, M. K. Sharp, A. Argaw, P. Kolsteren, and C. Lachat, “Usefulness of applying research reporting guidelines as Writing Aid software : a crossover randomised controlled trial,” BMJ OPEN, vol. 9, no. 11, 2019.
@article{8634642,
  abstract     = {Objectives: To assess the intention of using a Writing Aid software, which integrates four research reporting guidelines (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and STrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology-nutritional epidemiology) and their Elaboration & Explanation (E&E) documents during the write-up of research in Microsoft Word compared with current practices. 
Design: Two-arms crossover randomised controlled trial with no blinding and no washout period. 
Setting: Face-to-face or online sessions. 
Participants: 54 (28 in arm 1 and 26 in arm 2) doctoral arid postdoctoral researchers. 
Interventions: Reporting guidelines and their E&E document were randomly administered as Writing Aid or as Word documents in a single 30 min to 1 hour session, with a short break before crossing over to the other study intervention. 
Primary and secondary outcomes: Using the Technology Acceptance Model, we assessed the primary outcome: the difference in the mean of intention of use; and secondary outcomes: the difference in mean perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. The three outcomes were measured using questions with a 7-point Likert-scale. Secondary analysis using structural equation modelling (SEM) was applied to explore the relationships between the outcomes. 
Results: No significant difference in reported intention of use (mean difference and 95% CI 0.25 (-0.05 to 0.55), p=0.10), and perceived usefulness (mean difference and 95% CI 0.19 (-0.04 to 0.41), p=0.10). The Writing Aid performed significantly better than the word document on researchers' perceived ease of use (mean difference and 95% CI 0.59 (0.29 to 0.89), p<0.001). In the SEM analysis, participants' intention of using the tools was indirectly affected by perceived ease of use (beta 0.53 p=0.002). 
Conclusions: Despite no significant difference in the intention of use between the tools, administering reporting guidelines as Writing Aid is perceived as easier to use, offering a possibility to further explore its applicability to enhance reporting adherence.},
  articleno    = {e030943},
  author       = {Hawwash, Dana and Sharp, Melissa K and Argaw, Alemayehu and Kolsteren, Patrick and Lachat, Carl},
  issn         = {2044-6055},
  journal      = {BMJ OPEN},
  keywords     = {TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL,STROBE STATEMENT,EXPLANATION,EXTENSION},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {11},
  pages        = {9},
  title        = {Usefulness of applying research reporting guidelines as Writing Aid software : a crossover randomised controlled trial},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030943},
  volume       = {9},
  year         = {2019},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: