Scholarlink

Background <p>Inadequate reporting of interventions in educational research hinders the identification and replication of effective teaching strategies. This study aimed to analyze the reporting of educational interventions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on educating parents and caregivers of children with developmental disabilities (CDD).</p> Methods <p>This was a meta-research study, conducted on the literature synthesized in a prior scoping review. We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to November 13, 2023. Eligible studies were RCTs on the education of CDD parents/caregivers. We evaluated reporting using the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-Based Practice Educational Interventions and Teaching (GREET) checklist and its explanatory paper. The primary outcome was median adherence to the GREET checklist, while secondary outcomes included adherence to individual checklist items. We analyzed discrepancies in ratings between the two raters and assessed improvements in reporting practices over time.</p> Results <p>We analyzed 161 trials published from 1984 to 2023. Median adherence to the GREET checklist was 59% (10 out of 17 reported items), ranging from 29 to 82%. Adherence to individual GREET items varied from 2% (“Delivered as scheduled”) to 99% (“Intervention”, “Theory”, and “Educational Strategies”). The poorest adherence to the GREET checklist was found for items “Materials included”, “Adaptations”, “Incentives”, “Modifications”, and “Delivered as scheduled”. Discrepancies between two raters were noted in 565 (21%) of the 2,737 analyzed GREET items, with Cohen’s Kappa at 0.616. A modest improvement in reporting practices was observed in studies published from 2018 onward, compared to those published before 2018.</p> Conclusion <p>The reporting of educational interventions in analyzed RCTs was suboptimal. To enhance study replicability, specific educational materials must be reported in detail or included as supplementary files to foster evidence-based practice. Some GREET checklist items are challenging to score and would benefit from more precise definitions. Addressing these gaps could improve the efficacy of educational programs for parents and caregivers of children with developmental disabilities and the usability of the GREET checklist.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Assessing the reporting quality of educational interventions in trials on caregiver education for children with developmental disabilities using the GREET checklist: a meta-research study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月22日

查看全文
  • Mersiha Mahmić-Kaknjo,
  • Tea Andabaka,
  • Martina Radić,
  • Vesna Vučić,
  • Valentina Košćak,
  • Barbara Čaić,
  • Milena Žuža Praštalo,
  • Aleksandra Veselinović,
  • Biljana Pokimica,
  • Danijela Ristić Medić,
  • Jelena Međaković,
  • Edita Runjić,
  • Tamara Prevendar,
  • Antonia Jeličić Kadić,
  • Antonija Hrkać,
  • Antonia Čivljak,
  • Marta Čivljak,
  • Ivica Matić,
  • Tatjana Zorčec,
  • Livia Puljak

摘要

Background

Inadequate reporting of interventions in educational research hinders the identification and replication of effective teaching strategies. This study aimed to analyze the reporting of educational interventions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focused on educating parents and caregivers of children with developmental disabilities (CDD).

Methods

This was a meta-research study, conducted on the literature synthesized in a prior scoping review. We searched MEDLINE and Embase from inception to November 13, 2023. Eligible studies were RCTs on the education of CDD parents/caregivers. We evaluated reporting using the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-Based Practice Educational Interventions and Teaching (GREET) checklist and its explanatory paper. The primary outcome was median adherence to the GREET checklist, while secondary outcomes included adherence to individual checklist items. We analyzed discrepancies in ratings between the two raters and assessed improvements in reporting practices over time.

Results

We analyzed 161 trials published from 1984 to 2023. Median adherence to the GREET checklist was 59% (10 out of 17 reported items), ranging from 29 to 82%. Adherence to individual GREET items varied from 2% (“Delivered as scheduled”) to 99% (“Intervention”, “Theory”, and “Educational Strategies”). The poorest adherence to the GREET checklist was found for items “Materials included”, “Adaptations”, “Incentives”, “Modifications”, and “Delivered as scheduled”. Discrepancies between two raters were noted in 565 (21%) of the 2,737 analyzed GREET items, with Cohen’s Kappa at 0.616. A modest improvement in reporting practices was observed in studies published from 2018 onward, compared to those published before 2018.

Conclusion

The reporting of educational interventions in analyzed RCTs was suboptimal. To enhance study replicability, specific educational materials must be reported in detail or included as supplementary files to foster evidence-based practice. Some GREET checklist items are challenging to score and would benefit from more precise definitions. Addressing these gaps could improve the efficacy of educational programs for parents and caregivers of children with developmental disabilities and the usability of the GREET checklist.