Table 2.
Quality appraisal of included studies
| JBI tool | Author(s), year | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | % | Quality appraisal |
| Quasi-experimental studies | Alexander and Allen (2011)33 | Y | N | N* | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | 44 | Low |
| Baird et al (2019)42 | Y | N | N* | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | 44 | Low | |
| Davies et al (2017)43 | Y | N | N* | N | Y | Y | Y | N | N | 56 | Moderate | |
| Joslin et al (2015)45 | Y | Y | N* | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | 56 | Moderate | |
| Liaw and Goh (2018)46 | Y | N | N* | N | N | Y | Y | N | Y | 56 | Moderate | |
| Madu et al (2021)54 | Y | N | N* | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | 44 | Low | |
| Pinnington et al (2016)47 | Y | N | N* | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | 44 | Low | |
| Vincent and Mahendiran (2015)49 | Y | N | N* | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | 44 | Low | |
| Wakeling (2011)40 | Y | N | N* | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | 44 | Low | |
| Walker et al (2012)41 | Y | N | N* | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | 44 | Low | |
| Zhu et al (2018)50 | Y | N | N* | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | 56 | Moderate | |
| Yang et al (2019)51 | Y | N | N* | N | N | Y | Y | N | N | 44 | Low | |
| Q1: Is it clear in the study what is the cause and what is the effect? Q2: Were the participants included in any comparisons similar? Q3: Were the participants included in any comparisons receiving similar treatment/care other than the exposure or intervention of interest? *Note: ‘No’ is considered good. Q4: Was there a control group? Q5: Were there multiple measurements of the outcome both before and after the intervention/exposure? Q6: Was follow-up complete, and if not, were differences between groups in terms of their follow-up adequately described and analysed? Q7: Were the outcomes of participants included in any comparisons measured in the same way? Q8: Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? Q9: Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | ||||||||||||
| Prevalence | Aitken et al32 | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 78 | Moderate |
| Asfour52 | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 67 | Moderate | |
| Davies et al (2019)44 | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 78 | Moderate | |
| Diacon and Bell34 | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 78 | Moderate | |
| Eastwood et al35 | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 78 | Moderate | |
| Herrod et al36 | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 78 | Moderate | |
| Lim et al53 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 89 | High | |
| Møller et al37 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 100 | High | |
| Perren et al38 | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y | N | N | 56 | Moderate | |
| Szmuda et al39 | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 78 | Moderate | |
| Tura et al48 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | 89 | High | |
| Q1: Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population? Q2: Were study participants sampled in an appropriate way? Q3: Was the sample size adequate? Q4: Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? Q5: Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample? Q6: Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition? Q7: Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants? Q8: Was there appropriate statistical analysis? Q9: Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately? | ||||||||||||
*'No' is considered good
JBI, Joanna Briggs Institute; N, no; Y, yes.