Table 3.
Quality Assessment of Review Articles (QuADS tool).
| Abraham et al. (2018) | Acar et al. (2021) | Acquaye et al. (2018) | Acquaye (2017) | Alsubaie et al. (2021) | Cengiz et al. (2019) | Dolezal et al. (2021) | Ersahin (2020) | Ferriss and Forrest-Bank (2018) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Theoretical underpinning to research | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| 2. Statement of research aims | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| 3. Description of setting/population | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| 4. Appropriate study design | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 5. Appropriate sampling | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| 6. Rationale for choice of measures | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| 7. Appropriateness & description of measures | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| 8. Description of data collection | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| 9. Recruitment data provided | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 10. Justification of analytic method | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 11. Appropriate analysis | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| 12. Consideration of stakeholders in design | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 13. Strengths and limitations discussed | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 20 | 26 | 28 | 23 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 25 | 29 |
| Hijazi et al. (2014) | Hirad (2017) | Matos et al. (2021) | Maung et al. (2021) | McCormack and Strezov (2021) | Özdemir et al. (2021) | Paloma et al. (2019) | Prasetya et al. (2020) | Rizkalla and Segal (2018) | |
| 1. Theoretical underpinning to research | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 2. Statement of research aims | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 3. Description of setting/population | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| 4. Appropriate study design | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 3 |
| 5. Appropriate sampling | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 6. Rationale for choice of measures | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| 7. Appropriate description of measures | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| 8. Description of data collection | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 9. Recruitment data provided | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 10. Justification of analytic method | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 11. Appropriate analysis | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| 12. Consideration of stakeholders in design | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 13. Strengths and limitations discussed | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 31 | 31 | 30 | 28 | 25 | 14 | 23 | 8 | 33 |
| Shakespeare-Finch et al. (2014) | Simsir and Dilmac, (2021) | Simsir et al. (2021) | Taher and Allan (2020) | Taylor et al. (2020) | Umer and Elliot (2021) | Uy and Okubo (2018) | Wen et al. (2020) | ||
| 1. Theoretical underpinning to research | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | |
| 2. Statement of research aims | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | |
| 3. Description of setting/population | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| 4. Appropriate study design | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| 5. Appropriate sampling | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | |
| 6. Rationale for choice of measures | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | |
| 7. Appropriate description of measures | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| 8. Description of data collection | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | |
| 9. Recruitment data provided | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| 10. Justification of analytic method | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | |
| 11. Appropriate analysis | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| 12. Consideration of stakeholders in design | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| 13. Strengths and limitations discussed | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
| Total | 25 | 17 | 21 | 33 | 24 | 27 | 31 | 29 | |