Table 2.

The checklist for reporting results from the internet surveys checklist.

Item category and checklist item		Explanation
Design
	Describe survey design	A randomized controlled trial experiment testing the impact of using the GRASP framework on clinicians and health care professionals’ decisions in selecting predictive tools for CDSa, using a convenience invited sample to participate in the experiment
IRBb approval and informed consent process
	IRB approval	The experiment was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
	Informed consent	Informed consent was introduced at the beginning of the survey for participants to agree before they take the survey, including the length of time of the survey, types of data collected and its storage, investigators, and the purpose of the study
	Data protection	Collected personal information was protected through Macquarie University account on Qualtrics survey system
Development and pretesting
	Development and testing	The first author (MK) developed the survey and pilot tested the questions and its usability before deploying the survey to the participants
Recruitment process and description of the sample having access to the questionnaire
	Open survey versus closed survey	This was a closed survey; only invited participants had access to complete the survey
	Contact mode	An initial contact, via email, was sent to all invited participants. Only those who agreed to participate completed the web-based survey
	Advertising the survey	The survey was not advertised. Only invited participants were informed of the study and completed the survey
Survey administration
	Web or email	The survey was developed using the Qualtrics survey platform, and the link to the web-based survey was sent to invited participants via email. Responses were automatically collected through the Qualtrics survey platform then retrieved by the investigators for analysis
	Context	Only invited participants were informed of the study via email
	Mandatory/voluntary	The survey was not mandatory for invited participants
	Incentives	The only incentive was that participants could request to be acknowledged in the published study. Participants were also informed of the results of the survey after the analysis is complete
	Time/date	Data were collected over 6 weeks, from March 11 to April 21, 2019
	Randomization of items or questionnaires	To prevent biases, items were randomized. Figure 2 shows the survey workflow and randomization of 4 scenarios
	Adaptive questioning	Four scenarios were used and randomized, but they were not conditionally displayed
	Number of items	From 5 to 8 items per page
	Number of screens (pages)	The questionnaire was distributed over 5 pages
	Completeness check	Completeness checks were used after the questionnaire was submitted, and mandatory items were highlighted. Items provided a nonresponse option “not applicable” or “don’t know”
	Review step	Respondents were able to review and change their answers before submitting their answers
Response rates
	Unique site visitor	We used the IPc addresses to check for unique survey visitors
	View rate (ratio of unique survey visitors/unique site visitors)	Only invited participants had access to the survey. Survey visitors included those who completed the survey and those who started the survey but did not complete it or gave incomplete answers
	Participation rate (ratio of unique visitors who agreed to participate/unique first survey page visitors)	The recruitment rate was 90% (218 participants agreed to participate out of 242 invited participants who visited the first page)
	Completion rate (ratio of users who finished the survey/users who agreed to participate)	The completion rate was 91% (198 participants completed the survey out of 218 participants who agreed to participate)
Preventing multiple entries from the same individual
	Cookies used	Cookies were not used to assign a unique user identifier; instead, we used users’ computer IP to identify unique users
	IP address check	The IP addresses of participants’ computers were used to identify potential duplicate entries from the same user. Only 2 duplicate entries were captured and were eliminated before analysis
	Log file analysis	We also checked the provided demographic information, of all participants, to make sure the 2 identified duplicates were the only incidents
	Registration	Data were collected and the user IP and other demographic data were used later on to eliminate duplicate entries before analysis. Most recent entries were used in the analysis
Analysis
	Handling of incomplete questionnaires	Only completed surveys were used in the analysis
	Questionnaires submitted with an atypical timestamp	The task completion time was captured. However, no specific timeframe was used. In the analysis, we excluded statistical outliers, since the survey allowed users to re-enter after a while, for example, the next day. This is discussed in the paper
	Statistical correction	No statistical correction was required

^aCDS: clinical decision support.

^bIRB: institutional review board.

^cIP: internet protocol.