Questionnaires of accident and emergency departments: are they reproducible?

M W Cooke, S Wilson, P Bridge
{"title":"Questionnaires of accident and emergency departments: are they reproducible?","authors":"M W Cooke,&nbsp;S Wilson,&nbsp;P Bridge","doi":"10.1136/emj.17.5.355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Questionnaires are commonly sent to accident and emergency (A&E) departments to determine common practice and are often extrapolated to best practice.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To determine if questionnaire based studies have a defined population of A&E departments and whether studies are reproducible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All questionnaires in the Journal of Accident and Emergency Medicine were reviewed and assessed for inclusion criteria, departments studied and study design.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>30 questionnaires were detected, 22 were postal, six telephone and two did not state method of contact. Sample sizes ranged from 15 to 740 and inclusion of A&E departments was highly variable according to geographical area, size of department or consultant status. Seventeen (54.8%) did not state the source of A&E department listings. Response rates ranged from 55-100%. Only three studies undertook subset analysis according to either size or locality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Questionnaire of studies A&E departments have poor methodology descriptions, which means that many are not reproducible. Inclusion criteria are highly variable and failure to analyse important subsets may mean that individual departments cannot apply recommendations. Questionnaire studies relating to A&E do not use a consistent well defined population of A&E departments. Information in the studies is usually inadequate to allow them to be repeated.</p>","PeriodicalId":73580,"journal":{"name":"Journal of accident & emergency medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/emj.17.5.355","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of accident & emergency medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.17.5.355","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Questionnaires are commonly sent to accident and emergency (A&E) departments to determine common practice and are often extrapolated to best practice.

Aims: To determine if questionnaire based studies have a defined population of A&E departments and whether studies are reproducible.

Methods: All questionnaires in the Journal of Accident and Emergency Medicine were reviewed and assessed for inclusion criteria, departments studied and study design.

Results: 30 questionnaires were detected, 22 were postal, six telephone and two did not state method of contact. Sample sizes ranged from 15 to 740 and inclusion of A&E departments was highly variable according to geographical area, size of department or consultant status. Seventeen (54.8%) did not state the source of A&E department listings. Response rates ranged from 55-100%. Only three studies undertook subset analysis according to either size or locality.

Conclusions: Questionnaire of studies A&E departments have poor methodology descriptions, which means that many are not reproducible. Inclusion criteria are highly variable and failure to analyse important subsets may mean that individual departments cannot apply recommendations. Questionnaire studies relating to A&E do not use a consistent well defined population of A&E departments. Information in the studies is usually inadequate to allow them to be repeated.

急诊科调查问卷:是否可复制?
背景:调查问卷通常被发送到事故和紧急(A&E)部门,以确定常见做法,并经常推断为最佳做法。目的:确定基于问卷的研究是否有确定的急诊室人群,以及研究是否可重复。方法:对《急诊医学杂志》上的所有问卷进行回顾和评估,包括纳入标准、研究部门和研究设计。结果:共检出问卷30份,其中邮寄22份,电话6份,未注明联系方式2份。样本量从15到740不等,根据地理区域、部门规模或咨询师身份的不同,纳入的急症室数量变化很大。17家(54.8%)没有说明急症室列表的来源。回复率从55-100%不等。只有三项研究根据规模或地区进行了子集分析。结论:研究急诊科问卷的方法学描述较差,有许多问卷不可重复。纳入标准是高度可变的,未能分析重要的子集可能意味着个别部门无法应用建议。与急症室有关的问卷调查研究没有使用一致的明确定义的急症室人口。研究中的资料通常不充分,无法重复进行研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信