Table 1.
Quality assessment of each article using QATSDD
| Author(s) | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Score | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Grant et al., 2012) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | 40/42 | 95 |
| (Grant et al., 2017) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | 38/42 | 90 |
| (Färdig et al., 2011) | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 2 | 1 | 35/42 | 83 |
| (Fujita et al., 2010) | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | 37/42 | 88 |
| (Levitt et al., 2009) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 1 | 35/42 | 83 |
| (Mueser et al., 2002) | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | N/A | N/A | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 30/42 | 71 |
| (Salyers et al., 2014) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | 36/42 | 85 |
| (Lee et al., 2015) | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | 39/42 | 92 |
| (Bond & Drake, 2015) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | N/A | N/A | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 29/42 | 69 |
| (Slade et al., 2011) | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 1 | 36/42 | 85 |
| (Slade et al., 2015) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 1 | 35/42 | 83 |
| (Macias et al., 1994) | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 1 | 36/42 | 85 |
| (Stanard, 1999) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 1 | 35/42 | 83 |
| (Doughty et al., 2008) | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | 37/42 | 88 |
| (Cook et al., 2009) | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | 37/42 | 88 |
| (Fukui et al., 2011) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 1 | 35/42 | 83 |
| (Higgins et al., 2012) | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 43/48 | 89 |
| (Mak et al., 2016) | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 1 | 36/42 | 85 |
| (Canacott et al., 2019) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 2 | 41/42 | 97 |
| (Petros & Solomon, 2021) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | N/A | N/A | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 29/42 | 69 |
| (Repper & Carter, 2011) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | N/A | N/A | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 29/42 | 69 |
| (Davidson & Guy, 2012) | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | N/A | N/A | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 29/42 | 69 |
| (Cook et al., 2012) | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 1 | 36/42 | 85 |
| (van Gestel-Timmermans et al., 2012) | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | N/A | 3 | 3 | N/A | 2 | 1 | 35/42 | 83 |
Note: A: Explicit theoretical framework; B: Aims of the study; C: Research setting description; D: Sample size considered in terms of analysis; E: Representative sample of the target group of a reasonable size; F: Data collection procedure description; G: Rationale for choosing data collection tool(s); H: Detailed recruitment data; I: Reliability and validity of measurement tool(s) (Quantitative study only); J: Fit between research question and data collection method (Quantitative study only); K: Fit between research question and format and content of data collection tool, e.g., interview schedule (Qualitative study only); L: Fit between research question and analysis method; M: Good justification for analytic method; N: Assessment of reliability of analytical process (Qualitative study only); O: Evidence of user involvement in design; P: Strengths and limitations critically discussed.