Table 4.
Critical appraisal of included studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool
| Authors | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Overall appraisal |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oakman et al.[31] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | No concerns about the design. Clear description throughout. |
| Agaliotis et al. [37] | N | Y | Y | U | U | N | N | N | Y | U | Limited information on methodology and theoretical perspectives. Participants’ voice and researchers’ position is not adequately represented. Limited illustrative quotes. |
| Oakman et al. [30] | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | N | U | U | Y | Y | Moderate description of methods and analysis of the results. Information given but not in great detail. Unclear about pilot testing. |
| Holland and Collins [36] | N | U | U | U | U | N | N | Y | Y | Y | No information on methodology and theoretical perspectives. Moderate description of methods and analysis of the results. |
| Kalsi et al. [32] | N | U | U | U | U | N | N | Y | Y | U | No information on methodology and theoretical perspectives. Moderate description of methods and analysis of the results. |
| Hutting et al. [33] | N | N | U | U | U | N | N | U | Y | U | No information on methodology and theoretical perspectives. Limited description of methods and analysis of the results. Questionable member checking [a year after the focus group]. Concerns about the design of the study. |
| De Vries et al. [35] | N | U | U | U | U | N | N | Y | Y | Y | No information on methodology and theoretical perspectives. Moderate description of methods but limited understanding of qualitative research. |
| Coole, et al. [34] | N | U | U | U | U | N | N | Y | Y | Y | No information on methodology, theoretical perspectives and researchers’ position and influences. Moderate description of participants’ recruitment. |
| Wynne-Jones et al. [29] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | Moderate description of MMR methods. |
Note: Q=Question, Yes=Y, N=No and U= Unclear