Table 1.
Critical appraisal of included qualitative and quantitative studies
| First author (year) | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Critical appraisal of qualitative studies included in the review | ||||||||||
| Wakerman (2005) [37] | U | U | U | U | U | N | N | N | Y | Y |
| Gardner (2010) [28] | U | U | U | U | U | N | N | N | N | U |
| Barney (2004) [40] | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | Y |
| Lloyd (2008) [31] | U | U | U | U | U | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
| Lloyd (2009) [30] | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
| DiGiacomo (2010a) [26] | U | U | U | U | U | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
| Bailie (2004) [20] | U | U | U | U | U | N | N | N | Y | U |
| DiGiacomo (2010b) [27] | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
| d’Abbs (2008) [24] | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y |
| Thompson (2009) [35] | U | U | U | U | U | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
| Porter (2009) [39] | U | U | U | U | U | N | N | N | Y | Y |
| Ratima (1999) [38] | U | U | U | U | U | Y | N | Y | Y | Y |
| Si (2006) [34] | U | U | U | U | U | N | N | N | Y | U |
| Battersby (2008) | U | U | U | U | U | N | N | N | Y | Y |
| Barnett (2011) [21] | U | U | U | U | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Davidson (2008) [25] | U | U | U | U | U | Y | N | Y | U | Y |
| Carey (2013) [23] | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Schierhout (2010) [33] | U | U | U | U | U | N | N | N | Y | U |
| Kowanko (2012) [29] | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | Y |
| % | 0.00 | 31.58 | 31.58 | 31.58 | 31.58 | 26.32 | 10.53 | 63.16 | 78.95 | 78.95 |
| Critical appraisal of quantitative studies included in the review | ||||||||||
| Si (2006) [34] | Y | Y | U | Y | N/A | Y | N | U | Y | |
| Longstreet (2005) [32] | Y | U | N | U | N | Y | U | U | Y | |
| Reilley (2010) [42] | Y | Y | Y | N | N/A | N/A | N/A | U | Y | |
| Reilley (2009) [41] | U | Y | N | N | N/A | Y | N/A | U | Y | |
| Tracey (2013) [36] | N | N | N/A | N/A | N/A | Y | N/A | N/A | N/A | |
| % | 60.00 | 60.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 0.00 | 80.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 80.00 | |
Si (2006) [34] mixed method study has been appraised using both qualitative and quantitative instruments. Critical appraisal criteria for qualitative studies: (1) Is there congruency between the stated philosophical perspective between the research and the methodology? Is there congruity between the research methodology and the (2) research question or objectives? (3) methods used to collect data? (4) representation and analysis of data? (5) interpretation of results? (6) Is there a statement locating the researcher culturally or theoretically? (7) Is the influence of the research on the research and vice versa addressed? (8) Are participants and their voices, adequately represented? (9) Is the research ethical according to current criteria or, for recent studies, is there evidence of ethical approval by an appropriate body? (10) Do the conclusions drawn in the research report flow from the analysis or interpretation of the data? Critical appraisal criteria for quantitative studies: (1) Was the study based on a random or pseudo-random sample? (2) Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined? (3) Were confounding factors identified and strategies to deal with them stated? (4) Were outcomes assessed using objective criteria? (5) If comparisons were being made, was there sufficient description of the groups? (6) Was follow-up carried out over a sufficient time period? (7) Were the outcomes of people who withdrew described and included in the analysis? (8) Were outcomes measured in a reliable way? (9) Was appropriate statistical analysis used?
Y yes, N no, U unclear, N/A not applicable