Supplementary Table 2.

Qualitative Study Critical Appraisal

CASP Checklist Item	Stephens et al, 202034		Piau et al, 202031
	Strengths	Weaknesses	Strengths	Weaknesses
Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research?	•Interpretive approach evidenced by statement of exploratory qualitative approach •Importance of topic well supported in introduction	•Philosophical perspective not stated	•Background describes neuropsychiatric symptoms in the setting of PLWD in nursing homes •Describes paucity of research of NH staff perspectives, need for sociological considerations	•Purpose statement not stated directly
Is a qualitative methodology appropriate?	•Clear description of grounded theory methodology •Inductive reasoning enables findings to emerge from data	•Did not directly explain why grounded theory approach was selected over other methodologies	•Used conventional content analysis and summative qualitative content analysis	•Background focuses on neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS), mixed methods may have allowed deeper analysis of program impact on NPS
Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?	•Grounded theory congruent with stated purpose and objectives •Clear description of focus group and inclusion of demo video •Excerpts from focus group guide were provided and in line with aims of research	•Unclear description of decision to include emergency department provider perspectives and if asked different questions •Voice of the patient is absent; not recruited in the study (expressed by authors as limitation)	•Novel use of social evaluation approach •Compares 2 regions	•Did not discuss alternative design approaches such as mixed methods •Staff participants not adequately described (unclear sample size and roles)
Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research?	•Purposive sampling appropriate for aims •Allows for multivocality due to inclusion of family members, nurses, nurse practitioners, physicians, and administrators	•Snowball sampling may have increased risk of individuals self-selecting due to interest in technology •Did not describe why some individuals chose not to take part	•Half-day interviews in face-to-face group setting; described as staff meeting	•Staff participant recruitment strategy not described
Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?	•Focus group method appropriate for exploratory qualitative approach and grounded theory methodology •Setting for data collection was justified •Described planning of single-role focus groups to minimize power differentials in first groups, then planned multirole groups •Described iterative modification of interview guide	•Individual interviews may have elicited more reflective and personal accounts •Observations of nursing staff during transfers not included	•Collecting data at staff meeting with semistructured interview allowed exploration of staff perspectives •Describes how the second interview session was modified to include a questionnaire based on results from first interview sessions	•Did not describe which staff roles were selected for the interview or why •Data saturation not described
Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered?	•Self-reflexivity noted in data analysis •Researchers critically examined own role and potential bias during analysis phase •Many direct quotes promote authenticity and credibility	•Researcher role and influence not described in creation of research questions and interview guide •Group dynamics between interviewer and participants during the focus group sessions not described	•States that labeling of statements by social science researchers were clearly positioned and had agreement with participants	•Researcher role and influence not described in creation of research questions and interview guide •Group dynamics between interviewer and participants during the group sessions not described
Have ethical issues been taken into consideration?	•Procedural ethics reported such as IRB approval •Informed consent and confidentiality described	•No ethical issues evident	•Received ethical approval •Informed consent described	•No ethical issues evident
Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?	•Reflexivity used to address preconceptions and biases •Transparent discussion of limitations and potential for bias from self-selecting to participate due to interest in technology •Constant comparative analysis, line-by-line coding, memo writing, and integrative diagramming techniques described	•Composition of multirole focus groups not reported. Article alluded to complexity of these groups' interactions but were not specifically described. •Potential contradictory responses not reported	•Provides example codes that went into the key themes	•Composition of group interviews not reported •Does not describe whether researcher critically examined their own role or potential bias
Is there a clear statement of findings?	•Theoretical constructs effectively demonstrate findings such as trust, validation, role misunderstanding, remote presence, and “the power of the visual” •Described research team members' regular meetings to reach consensus on codes •Findings thoroughly discussed in relation to original research question	•Respondent validation and member checking not described	•Visualization using SWOT analysis nicely summarizes and presents the data •States that labeling of statements by social science researchers were clearly positioned and had agreement with participants	•States positive impact on NPS but clinical assessments or measurements not explicitly reported
How valuable is the research?	•Timely and significant topic •Paucity of research in nursing home perspectives, especially in regard to telehealth •Transferable findings •Identified new areas for further research	•Authors note limitation of generalizability due to small sample and limited geographic area •Focuses on benefits of technology but concerns and barriers not explored in results	•Provides helpful discussion of the study results in context of previous research •2 years of field experience produces valuable results	•As described in limitations, only 1 researcher carried out interviews, limits generalizability

CASP, Critical Appraisal Skills Program; IRB, institutional review board; NH, nursing home; NPS, neuropsychiatric symptoms; PLWD, person living with dementia; SWOT, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.