Table 3.
Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS) scores for each paper
| Paper | Smith et al. 2009 18 | Mohamed, Feroze B., et al. 2010 19 | Barakat, N., et al. 2011 20 | Mulcahey et al. (2011) 21 | Barakat et al. 22 | Taso, Manuel, et al. 23 | By, et al. 24 | Peterson, D. J., et al. (2017) | Martin, A. R., et al. (2017) | Guan, Li, et al. 27 | Lee, Eugene, et al. 28 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Score (0–3) | ||||||||||
| 1.Theoretical or conceptual underpinning to the research | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 2.Statement of research aim/s | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| 3.Clear description of research setting and target population | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| 4.The study design is appropriate to address the stated research aim/s | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| 5.Appropriate sampling to address the research aim/s | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 6.Rationale for choice of data collection tool/s | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| 7.The format and content of data collection tool is appropriate to address the stated research aim/s | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 8.Description of data collection procedure | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 9.Recruitment data provided | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| 10.Justification for analytic method selected | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| 11.The method of analysis was appropriate to answer the research aim/s | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| 12.Evidence that the research stakeholders have been considered in research design or conduct | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 13.Strengths and limitations critically discussed | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Total scores | 29 | 29 | 31 | 31 | 27 | 27 | 27 | 32 | 34 | 14 | 26 |
| Score as Percentage | 74% | 74% | 79% | 79% | 69% | 69% | 69% | 82% | 87% | 35% | 66% |