Table 3.
Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) scores of included studies
| 1st author (Year), Country | Methodological Quality Criteria | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial | |||||
| Is randomization appropriately performed? | Are the groups comparable at baseline? | Are there complete outcome data? | Are outcome assessors blinded to the intervention provided? | Did the participants adhere to the assigned intervention? | |
| Chae (2001) [27], Ireland | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Welch (2000) [19], USA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Can’t tell | ✓ |
| Quantitative Non-Randomized Studies | |||||
| Are the participants representative of the target population? | Are measurements appropriate regarding both the outcome and intervention (or exposure)? | Are there complete outcome data? | Are the confounders accounted for in the design and analysis? | During the study period, is the intervention administered (or exposure occurred) as intended? | |
| Benaque (2020) [29], Spain | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | X | ✓ |
| Jiwa (2005) [25], UK | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Can’t tell | ✓ |
| Khoong (2020) [24], USA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Lam (2020) [23], 2020 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Van Houwelingen (2015) [20], Netherlands | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Quantitative Descriptive Studies | |||||
| Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the research question? | Is the sample representative of the target population? | Are the measurements appropriate? | Is the risk of nonresponse bias low? | Is the statistical analysis appropriate to answer the research question? | |
| Bujnowska-Fedak (2014) [28], Poland | ✓ | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | ✓ | ✓ |
| Jacome (2019) [26], Portugal | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Samples (2019) [22], USA | Can’t tell | ✓ | ✓ | X | ✓ |
| Townsend (2001) [21], USA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Can’t tell | ✓ |
| Qualitative Studies | |||||
| Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question? | Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question? | Are the findings adequately derived from the data? | Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data? | Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis and interpretation? | |
| Blozik (2012) [35], Switzerland | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Foster (2001) [34], UK | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Franzosa (2021) [33], USA | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Kung (2016) [32], China | ✓ | ✓ | Can’t tell | ✓ | Can’t tell |
| Nymberg (2019) [31]. Sweden | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Waterworth (2018) [30], New Zealand | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Mixed Methods Studies | |||||
| Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question? | Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question? | Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted? | Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed? | Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved? | |
| Gabrielsson-Järhult (2021) [38], Sweden | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Macduff (2001) [37], Scotland | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell |
| Van Houwelingen (2018) [36], Netherlands | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
✓ = the paper adequately responds to the methodological quality criterion; X = the paper does not adequately respond to the methodological quality criterion; Can’t tell = the paper does not report appropriate information to answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ or reports unclear information related to the methodological quality criterion