Table 3.
Quality Assessment Using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Tool
| Author (year of study) | CASP Criteria | Total Score | Rating | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |||
| Longworth et al (2003) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | 16 | Moderate Quality |
| Bradway et al (2006) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Yes | 17 | Moderate Quality |
| Bradway et al (2008) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | 17 | Moderate Quality |
| Elstad et al (2010) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 19 | High Quality |
| Welch et al (2012) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 20 | High Quality |
| Sevilla et al (2013) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Yes | 18 | High Quality |
| Dunivan et al (2014) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | 18 | High Quality |
| Siddiqui et al (2016) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Yes | 19 | High Quality |
| Alas et al (2016) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 19 | High Quality |
| Brown et al (2017) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 19 | High Quality |
| Jackson et al (2017) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 19 | High Quality |
| Maldonado et al (2021) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Can’t Tell/ Partly | Yes | Yes | 18 | High Quality |
|
CASP criteria:
1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? 2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? 3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? 4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? 5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? 6. Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered? 7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? 8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? 9. Is there a clear statement of findings? 10. How valuable is the research? |
CASP criteria score:
• Criterion is completely met: “Yes” = 2 • Criterion is partially met or can’t tell: “Can’t Tell/Partly” = 1 • Criterion not applicable, not met, or not mentioned: “No” = 0 Total score: • High quality, score 18 – 20 • Moderate quality, score 15 – 17 • Low quality, score < 15 |
|||||||||||