Skip to main content

Table 3 Assessment of included studies according to methodological framework *

From: The use of experimental vignette studies to identify drivers of variations in the delivery of health care: a scoping review

Study

Vignette design

Wider study design

Score

Rating

Credibility

Number of vignettes

Variability

Mode

Evaluation

Description

Concealment

Realism

Sampling & response

Analysis

Lutfey 2009 & 2010 [66, 67]

3

> 1

1

Video

3

1

3

1

5

1

18

Good

Samuelsson 2014 [70]

3

> 1

1

Text only

2

1

2

1

6

1

17

Adams 2014 [53]

2

> 1

1

Video

2

1

3

1

5

1

16

Elliott 2016 [60]

3

> 1

1

Interactive (in-person)

3

0

1

0

5

1

14

Tinkler 2018 [73]

2

1

1

Interactive (by phone)

1

1

3

1

6

n/a

15

Sheringham 2017 [72]

2

> 1

0

Interactive (online)

2

1

2

1

4

1

13

Burt 2016 [58]

3

> 1

1

Video

3

0

1

0

3

1

12

Fischer 2017 [61]

3

1

1

Video

2

0

2

1

2

n/a

11

Hirsh 2009 [64]

3

> 1

1

Video

2

1

0

0

2

2

11

Burgess 2014 [57]

2

1

0

Pictorial

0

0

1

1

6

n/a

10

Green 2007 [63]

2

1

0

Pictorial

2

0

0

1

4

n/a

9

Moderate

Daugherty 2017 [59]

2

1

0

Pictorial

2

1

0

0

4

n/a

9

Wiltshire 2018 [74]

2

> 1

1

Pictorial

0

1

0

0

3

1

8

McKinlay 2012 [68]

2

1

0

Video

2

0

0

0

4

n/a

8

Begeer 2008 [54]

1

> 1

0

Text only

0

0

0

0

5

0

6

Bories 2018 [56]

1

> 1

0

Text only

1

1

0

0

2

1

6

Shapiro 2018 [71]

1

1

0

Pictorial

0

1

0

0

4

n/a

6

Johnson-Jennings 2018 [65, 75]

2

1

0

Pictorial

1

1

0

0

0

n/a

4

Low

Bernardes 2013 [55]

2

>1

0

Text only

0

1

0

0

0

1

4

Papaleontiou 2017 [69]

1

> 1

0

Text only

0

0

0

0

2

0

3

Gao 2019 [62]

0

1

0

Text only

0

1

0

0

0

n/a

1

  1. * Scoring system (more detail in supplementary file 2): credibility 0-3 (3= construction well described, 2= described to some extent 0/1 = little or no description); number (no score); variability 0-1 (1= more than one variant of an experimental factor produced, 0= no); mode (no score); evaluation 0-3 (3= well described, 2= described to some extent 0/1 = little or no description); description 0-1 (1= full vignette available to view, as much as is practically possible, 0= no); concealment 0-3 (3= concealment strategies clearly described or analysis considered effects of awareness, 2= described to some extent, 1 = purpose was not shared but no description of how concealment attempted 0 = no/not stated); realism 0-1 (1= attempt to introduce realism into data collection conditions, 0- no); sampling & response 0-6 (NB: each score is doubled to account for both sampling and response: 3= random sampling, response & completion rate high, justified exclusions; 2= sample strategy described & justified (purposive or random); response or completion rates fully reported and risk of bias considered; 1= sampling strategy inadequately or not described, inadequate consideration of bias; 0= response rates not given & inadequate consideration of bias); analysis 0-2 (2= accounted for clustering & individual/aggregated analysis performed 1= accounted for clustering OR individual/aggregated analysis performed 0= neither n/a = only one vignette shown to participants)
Back to article page

BMC Medical Research Methodology

ISSN: 1471-2288

Contact us