Tables showing study quality assessment

John L Campbell; Emily Fletcher; Gary Abel; Rob Anderson; Rupatharshini Chilvers; Sarah G Dean; Suzanne H Richards; Anna Sansom; Rohini Terry; Alex Aylward; Grant Fitzner; Mayam Gomez-Cano; Linda Long; Navonil Mustafee; Sophie Robinson; Philip A Smart; Fiona C Warren; Jo Welsman; Chris Salisbury

Appendix 8Tables showing study quality assessment

Publication Details

Tables 31 and 32 show the assessed quality of each included survey study.

TABLE 31

Overview of the assessed quality of UK survey-based studies

TABLE 32

Overview of the assessed quality of non-UK survey-based studies

Publication Details

Copyright

Copyright © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2019. This work was produced by Campbell et al. under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.

Publisher

NIHR Journals Library, Southampton (UK)

NLM Citation

Campbell JL, Fletcher E, Abel G, et al. Policies and strategies to retain and support the return of experienced GPs in direct patient care: the ReGROUP mixed-methods study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2019 Apr. (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 7.14.) Appendix 8, Tables showing study quality assessment.

TABLE 31

Overview of the assessed quality of UK survey-based studies

Question	Study first author, year of publication
Question	Baker, 1995⁵²	Baker, 2000⁷⁷	Campbell, 2015¹⁷	Chambers, 2004⁵⁴	Dale, 2015⁴⁴	Doran, 2015⁵⁵	Evans, 2000⁵⁶	French, 2005⁵⁷	French, 2006⁵⁸	Gibson, 2015⁴³	Hann, 2010⁵⁹	Hutchins, 2005⁷⁶	Luce, 2002⁶¹	Martin, 2015⁴¹	McKinstry, 2006⁴⁶	Scott, 2006⁴⁵	Simoens, 2002⁶³	Simoens, 2002⁴²	Sibbald, 2003⁶²	Taylor, 1999⁶⁴	Taylor, 2008⁶⁵	Young, 2001⁶⁶
Did the study address a clearly focused question/study aims?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	P	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Is the research method appropriate for answering the research question/aims?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Was the questionnaire piloted prior to the main survey (or previously validated/used)?	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	CT	Y	Y	Y	Y	CT	N	CT	Y	N	P	Y
Is the method of selection criteria of the subjects clearly described?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	P	Y	N	Y	Y	CT	Y	Y	P	Y	Y	Y	Y	P
Could the way the sample was obtained introduce (selection) bias?^a	P	N	P	N	CT	P	N	CT	P	CT	CT	N	N	CT	P	N	CT	N	P	N	N	CT
Was the sample size adequate for generalisability?	P	Y	Y	P	Y	Y	Y	P	Y	Y	Y	P	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Was the sample of subjects representative with regard to the all GPs/PCPs in that region or country?	N	Y	CT	CT	P	Y	Y	CT	Y	P	P	CT	P	CT	P	Y	CT	Y	Y	Y	Y	P
Was the sample size based on pre-study considerations of statistical power?	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	CT	CT	N	N	CT	N	CT	N	N	N	N	N	N
Was a satisfactory response rate achieved?	N	P	P	Y	CT	N	Y	P	P	P	P	Y	Y	N	P	N	N	P	P	CT	Y	P
Were the variables for capturing quitting/intention to quit clearly described and likely to be valid and reliable?	Y	Y	Y	P	Y	Y	P	Y	P	Y	P	P	P	Y	P	Y	Y	Y	P	Y	Y	Y
Were the variables for capturing potential factors clearly described, comprehensive, valid and reliable?	Y	Y	Y	P	Y	Y	N	Y	P	Y	Y	P	Y	Y	P	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Was the statistical significance (of relevant associations) assessed?	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Are CIs given for the main results?	N	N	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	N	N	N	N	P	N	N	Y	Y	N
Could there be confounding factors that have not been accounted for?^a	Y	P	P	Y	P	Y	Y	Y	P	Y	CT	Y	Y	P	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	Y	P
Can the results be confidently applied to all GPs in the source region and country?	N	P	P	Y	CT	P	Y	P	P	P	P	CT	P	CT	P	P	N	P	P	Y	P	P
Can the results be confidently applied to all GPs in the UK NHS in 2016?	N	P	P	P	P	P	P	P	P	P	P	P	P	CT	P	P	N	P	P	P	P	P

: CT, cannot tell; N, no; P, partly; Y, yes.

a: Note that two items are negatively worded, so a yes indicates poorer quality and a no indicates better quality for these criteria.

: Note

: Darker shading denotes a lower quality study or lower quality reporting for that item.

TABLE 32

Overview of the assessed quality of non-UK survey-based studies

Question	Study first author, year of publication
Question	Brett, 2009²⁷	Dewa, 2014⁶⁷	McComb, 2008⁶⁸	Norman, 2014⁶⁹	Nugent, 2003⁷⁰	O’Kelly, 2008⁷¹	Pit, 2014⁷²	RNZCGP, 2015¹⁶⁶	Shrestha, 2011⁷³	Sumanen, 2012⁷⁴	Van Greuningen, 2012³⁴	Woodward, 2001⁷⁵
Did the study address a clearly focused question/study aims?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Is the research method appropriate for answering the research question/aims?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Was the questionnaire piloted prior to the main survey (or previously validated/used)?	P	Y	N	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	N	N	N
Is the method of selection criteria of the subjects clearly described?	Y	Y	P	Y	Y	Y	P	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Could the way the sample was obtained introduce (selection) bias?^a	N	CT	CT	N	N	N	CT	N	N	N	N	N
Was the sample size adequate for generalisability?	P	Y	Y	Y	P	P	P	Y	Y	Y	P	P
Was the sample of subjects representative with regard to the all GPs/PCPs in that region or country?	CT	P	P	Y	Y	Y	CT	Y	Y	Y	CT	CT
Was the sample size based on pre-study considerations of statistical power?	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N	N
Was a satisfactory response rate achieved?	P	N	P	Y	Y	Y	P	P	N	P	P	P
Were the variables for capturing intention to quit clearly described and likely to be valid and reliable?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	P
Were the variables for capturing potential factors clearly described, comprehensive, valid and reliable?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
Was the statistical significance (of relevant associations) assessed?	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
Are CIs given for the main results?	Y	Y	Y	Y	P	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
Could there be confounding factors that have not been accounted for?^a	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	N	CT	N
Can the results be confidently applied to all GPs in the source region and country?	P	N	P	Y	Y	P	CT	P	N	P	CT	CT
Can the results be confidently applied to GPs in the UK NHS in 2016?	CT	P	P	Y	P	P	CT	P	N	P	CT	CT

: CT, cannot tell; N, no; P, partly; Y, yes.

a: Note that the two shaded question items are negatively worded, so a ‘yes’ indicates poorer study quality and a ‘no’ indicates better study quality for these items.

: Note

: Darker shading denotes lower quality or reporting for that item.