ReviewPerspectives in clinical research
Crafting an effective questionnaire: An essential prerequisite of engaging surveys.
Review in Perspectives in clinical research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing health beliefs and patient delay among breast cancer patients in West Sumatra, Indonesia.MethodsX · 2026Article
- Routine care practices for stable lung allograft recipients beyond the initial post-transplant year: An international survey study.JHLT open · 2026Article
- Article
- Tell us what you really think: undergraduate nursing students validation of the Questionnaire Virtual Patient - a qualitative think-aloud study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Clinician perspectives on the clinical utility of Belay Summit™ 2.0 cerebrospinal fluid test - A mixed methods study.The journal of liquid biopsy · 2026Article
- Acceptance of Technological Innovations in Emergency Departments: An Empirical Study Based on an Extended TAM.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Sports participation and physical health outcomes: the mediating roles of educational attainment and health-related behaviors.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Questionnaires play a crucial role in biomedical research, enabling valuable data collection from individuals. However, the effectiveness of a questionnaire depends on its ability to engage respondents and gather accurate information. This manuscript delves into the intricacies of crafting an effective questionnaire, exploring the essential elements that contribute to their success and impact, and highlights the need for well-crafted questionnaires in biomedical research emphasizing the importance of maximizing respondent engagement, obtaining reliable data, enhancing data completeness, minimizing nonresponse rates and bias, and facilitating data analysis. The article further sheds light on the factors influencing questionnaire effectiveness, including clear and concise language, logical flow and structure, relevance and significance, avoidance of double-barreled and leading questions, and using balanced response options and skip questions. This narrative review examines how each factor contributes to questionnaire quality and offers examples to illustrate their importance. Moreover, it emphasizes the significance of investing time and effort in designing effective questionnaires to ensure the validity and success of biomedical research. By understanding the art of engaging surveys, researchers can optimize their data collection processes and enhance the reliability and validity of their findings.
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.