Table 3.

Summary of quantitative and qualitative quality scores for selected articles

Quantitative studies (N= 6)	Number of articles	% Total studies
1 – Longitudinal/prospective design	5	83.3
2 – Pre-post measure of outcome(s) of interest	2	33.3
3 – Use of control or comparison group	1	16.7
4 – Comparison group selected from similar population with regard to pre-intervention outcomes or socio-demographics	1	16.7
5 – Sample size justified	2	33.3
6 – Random assignment of individuals to intervention	0	0
7 – Outcome of interest measured objectively and systematically	6	100
8 – Response or follow-up rate of more than 80%	3	50
9 – Use of theoretical framework for guidance	1	16.7
10 – Report of an index of variability between groups	1	16.7
11 – Report of intervention implementation detail to facilitate replication	6	100
Strong Rating (9 – 11 points)	0	0
Moderate Rating (6 – 8 points)	2	33.3
Weak Rating (≤ 5 points)	4	66.7
Qualitative studies (N= 3)	Number of articles	% Total studies
1 – Prolonged engagement in study setting	2	66.7
2 – Justification for design and methods selected	3	100
3 – Sampling strategy justified	1	33.3
4 – Analytical methods clearly described	1	33.3
5 – Use of verification methods to demonstrate credibility	1	33.3
6 – Reflexivity of account provided	0	0
7 – Detailed report of findings	3	100
8 – Balanced and fair representation of view points	2	66.7
9 – Conclusions supported and confirmable by the data	3	100
10 – Report of intervention implementation detail to facilitate replication	2	66.7
Strong Rating (8 – 10 points)	0	0
Moderate Rating (5 – 7 points)	3	100
Weak Rating (≤ 4 points)	0	0