ArticleJMIR research protocols2016
Feasibility of an Electronic Survey on iPads with In-Person Data Collectors for Data Collection with Health Care Professionals and Health Care Consumers in General Emergency Departments.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plugged-in: a Canadian survey of technology ownership, access, use, and attitudes among emergency department patients.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Development and evaluation of a parent advisory group to inform a research program for knowledge translation in child health.Research involvement and engagement · 2021Article
- Community Volunteer Support for Families With Young Children: Protocol for the Volunteer Family Connect Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranslating Emergency Knowledge for Kids was established to bridge the research-practice gap in pediatric emergency care by bringing the best evidence to Canadian general emergency departments (EDs). The first step in this process was to conduct a national needs assessment to determine the information needs and preferences of health professionals and parents in this clinical setting.
objectiveTo describe the development and implementation of two electronic surveys, and determine the feasibility of collecting electronic survey data on iPads with in-person data collectors in a busy clinical environment.
methodsTwo descriptive surveys were conducted in 32 general EDs. Specific factors were addressed in four survey development and implementation stages: survey design, survey delivery, survey completion, and survey return. Feasibility of the data collection approach was determined by evaluating participation rates, completion rates, average survey time to completion, and usability of the platform. Usability was assessed with the in-person data collectors on five key variables: interactivity, portability, innovativeness, security, and proficiency.
resultsHealth professional participation rates (1561/2575, 60.62%) and completion rates (1471/1561, 94.23%) were strong. Parental participation rates (974/1099, 88.63%) and completion rates (897/974, 92.09%) were excellent. Mean time to survey completion was 28.08 minutes for health professionals and 43.23 minutes for parents. Data collectors rated the platform "positively" to "very positively" on all five usability variables.
conclusionsA number of design and implementation considerations were explored and integrated into this mixed-mode survey data collection approach. Feasibility was demonstrated by the robust survey participation and completion rates, reasonable survey completion times, and very positive usability evaluation results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.