Table 6.
Quality assessment of qualitative studies
| First Author | Date | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | Total (Out of a Possible 8)* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chakrapani et al | 2011 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6/8 |
| Culbert | 2014 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5/8 |
| Wei et al | 2014 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8/8 |
| Hoffmann et al | 2016 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4/8 |
| Liu et al | 2016 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6/8 |
| Arnold, et al | 2017 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7/8 |
| Bui et al | 2017 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6/8 |
| Graham et al | 2018 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7/8 |
| Lazuardi et al | 2020 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8/8 |
| Carnes, et al. | 2020 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5/8 |
| Nakiganda, L.J., et al | 2022 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8/8 |
Note:
(1) Was the purpose or research question in this paper clearly stated?
(2) Was the qualitative approach and research paradigm stated in this paper?
(3) Was the interviewer’s characteristics and reflexivity (e.g., personal attributes, qualifications/experience) described in this paper?
(4) Was the sampling strategy (how and why research participants were selected, criteria for necessary sampling) clearly described in this paper?
(5) Was the data collection method (e.g., data collection procedure, description of instruments for data collection) clearly described?
(6) Was the data analysis approach (e.g., data processing, data coding) clearly described?
(7) Does the paper describe the use of a technique to enhance trustworthiness?
(8) Does the paper discuss how findings relate to other work?
To quantify the quality level, we calculated the score with the Result multiplied by 3, resulting in a range of (0–3). The cutoff of different quality level are: Low quality: (0–1); Fair quality: (1–2); Good quality: (2–3).