Critical appraisal tool for questionnaire surveys based on Boynton P, Greenhalgh T (2004)50
| Richards 200558 | Pagliari 200559 | Chronaki 200755 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Research question and design clear, appropriate | Y | Y | Y |
| Sampling sufficient, understood | Y | Y | Health professionals—Y Patients—not clear |
| Instrument validity, reliability, pilot | Y | Quantitative indicators (1) Y Qualitative instrument (2) N | N N |
| Response rate, non-responders | 87% after 2 reminders | (1) Autogenerated data (2) 47% after 2 reminders | 29 out of 30 health professionals 324 patients—N |
| Coding and analysis appropriate, accurate | Y | 1. Y2. Not clear | Not clear N |
| Presentation of results reporting relevance | Y | 1. Y2. N uses terms such as ‘most’, ‘main’, ‘some’ | N—only ‘most important findings’ N—potential bias in sampling, analysis, reporting |
| Additional comments | Compares attitudes to ehealth between GPs and nurses in isolated Scottish practices drawing parallels with rural Australia. Although remote monitoring of patients is mentioned, only videoconferencing and teleconferencing and data exchange are fully explored | 1. Reports the uptake of eHealth in Scotland under the ECCI programme limited to data exchange (results, email, letters, referrals)2. Reports user perceptions of ECCI | Evaluation of remote healthcare provider uptake of the HYGEIAnet in Crete for EHRs, Twister project. Measure of uptake of EHR, questionnaire to health professionals may be valid but basis for patient questionnaire not established, not validated nor piloted, no limitations stated, question patient sample understanding of ehealth given low computer literacy/internet access. Limited referencing |
| GRADE63 Quality of evidence (magnitude of effect) | ++ (very low) | ++ (low) | + (very low) |
ECCI, Electronic Clinical Communications Implementation; EHR, Electronic Health Records; GRADE, Grading of Recommendations, Assessments, Developments and Evaluation.