Table 2 Quality assessment
Items | Cawley et al. [28] | Linell et al. [29] | Malvasi et al. [30] | Nor Moh-d-Shukri et al. [31] | Redfern K et al. [32] | Santamaria et al. [33] | Vitale S et al. [34] | O'Malley et al. [27] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Theoretical or conceptual underpinning to the research | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
2. Statement of research aim/s | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
3. Clear description of research setting and target population | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
4. The study design is appropriate to address the stated research aim/s | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
5. Appropriate sampling to address the research aim/s | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
6. Rationale for choice of data collection tool/s | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
7. The format and content of data collection tool is appropriate to address the stated research aim/s | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
8. Description of data collection procedure | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
9. Recruitment data provided | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
10. Justification for analytic method selected | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
11. The method of analysis was appropriate to answer the research aim/s | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
12. Evidence that the research stakeholders have been considered in research design or conduct | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
13. Strengths and limitations critically discussed | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Total score (sum and % of 13 items' score) | 34 (80,90%) | 31 (73,80%) | 32 (76,20%) | 28 (66,60%) | 34 (80,90%) | 33 (78,50%) | 26 (66,66%) | 35 (83,30%) |