The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) was developed for critically appraising different study designs. This study aimed to improve the content validity of three of the five categories of studies in the MMAT by identifying relevant methodological criteria for appraising the quality of qualitative, survey, and mixed methods studies. First, we performed a literature review to identify critical appraisal tools and extract methodological criteria. Second, we conducted a two-round modified e-Delphi technique. We asked three method-specific panels of experts to rate the relevance of each criterion on a five-point Likert scale. A total of 383 criteria were extracted from 18 critical appraisal tools and a literature review on the quality of mixed methods studies, and 60 were retained. In the first and second rounds of the e-Delphi, 73 and 56 experts participated, respectively. Consensus was reached for six qualitative criteria, eight survey criteria, and seven mixed methods criteria. These results led to modifications of eight of the 11 MMAT (version 2011) criteria. Specifically, we reformulated two criteria, replaced four, and removed two. Moreover, we added six new criteria. Results of this study led to improve the content validity of this tool, revise it, and propose a new version (MMAT version 2018).

Objective The aim of this systematic review was to synthesize current knowledge of the factors influencing healthcare professional adoption of mobile health (m-health) applications. Methods Covering a period from 2000 to 2014, we conducted a systematic literature search on four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo). We also consulted references from included studies. We included studies if they reported the perceptions of healthcare professionals regarding barriers and facilitators to m-health utilization, if they were published in English, Spanish, or French and if they presented an empirical study design (qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods). Two authors independently assessed study quality and performed content analysis using a validated extraction grid with pre-established categorization of barriers and facilitators. Results The search strategy led to a total of 4223 potentially relevant papers, of which 33 met the inclusion criteria. Main perceived adoption factors to m-health at the individual, organizational, and contextual levels were the following: perceived usefulness and ease of use, design and technical concerns, cost, time, privacy and security issues, familiarity with the technology, risk-benefit assessment, and interaction with others (colleagues, patients, and management). Conclusion This systematic review provides a set of key elements making it possible to understand the challenges and opportunities for m-health utilization by healthcare providers.

Background: Electronic health record (EHR) implementation is currently underway in Canada, as in many other countries. These ambitious projects involve many stakeholders with unique perceptions of the implementation process. EHR users have an important role to play as they must integrate the EHR system into their work environments and use it in their everyday activities. Users hold valuable, first-hand knowledge of what can limit or contribute to the success of EHR implementation projects. A comprehensive synthesis of EHR users' perceptions is key to successful future implementation. This systematic literature review was aimed to synthesize current knowledge of the barriers and facilitators influencing shared EHR implementation among its various users. Methods: Covering a period from 1999 to 2009, a literature search was conducted on nine electronic databases. Studies were included if they reported on users' perceived barriers and facilitators to shared EHR implementation, in healthcare settings comparable to Canada. Studies in all languages with an empirical study design were included. Quality and relevance of the studies were assessed. Four EHR user groups were targeted: physicians, other health care professionals, managers, and patients/public. Content analysis was performed independently by two authors using a validated extraction grid with pre-established categorization of barriers and facilitators for each group of EHR users. Results: Of a total of 5,695 potentially relevant publications identified, 117 full text publications were obtained after screening titles and abstracts. After review of the full articles, 60 publications, corresponding to 52 studies, met the inclusion criteria. The most frequent adoption factors common to all user groups were design and technical concerns, ease of use, interoperability, privacy and security, costs, productivity, familiarity and ability with EHR, motivation to use EHR, patient and health professional interaction, and lack of time and workload. Each user group also identified factors specific to their professional and individual priorities. Conclusions: This systematic review presents innovative research on the barriers and facilitators to EHR implementation. While important similarities between user groups are highlighted, differences between them demonstrate that each user group also has a unique perspective of the implementation process that should be taken into account.

Objective: To examine the factors that could influence the decision of healthcare professionals to use a telemonitoring system. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire, based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), was developed. A panel of experts in technology assessment evaluated the face and content validity of the instrument. Two hundred and thirty-four questionnaires were distributed among nurses and doctors of the cardiology, pulmonology, and internal medicine departments of a tertiary hospital. Cronbach alpha was calculated to measure the internal consistency of the questionnaire items. Construct validity was evaluated using interitem correlation analysis. Logistic regression analysis was performed to test the theoretical model. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed. Results: A response rate of 39.7% was achieved. With the exception of one theoretical construct (Habit) that corresponds to behaviors that become automatized, Cronbach alpha values were acceptably high for the remaining constructs. Theoretical variables were well correlated with each other and with the dependent variable. The original TAM was good at predicting telemonitoring usage intention, Perceived Usefulness being the only significant predictor (OR: 5.28, 95% CI: 2.12–13.11). The model was still significant and more powerful when the other theoretical variables were added. However, the only significant predictor in the modified model was Facilitators (OR: 4.96, 95% CI: 1.59–15.55). Conclusion: The TAM is a good predictive model of healthcare professionals' intention to use telemonitoring. However, the perception of facilitators is the most important variable to consider for increasing doctors' and nurses' intention to use the new technology.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet