Table 3.
Summary of Hawker and colleagues' quality assessment scores for included studies (28)
| Study | Abstract/Titles | Introduction/Aims | Method/Data | Sampling | Data Analysis | Ethics/Bias | Results | Transferability/Generalizability | Usefulness | Total Score Out of 36 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kaufman et al. (39), 2006 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 33 |
| Breckenbridge (38), 1997 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 33 |
| Schell et al. (42), 2012 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 32 |
| Lin et al. (44), 2005 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 32 |
| Kelly-Powell (40),1997 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 30 |
| Aasen et al. (33), 2012 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 28 |
| Russ et al. (41), 2007 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 28 |
| Ashby et al. (43), 2005 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 27 |
| Halvorsen et al. (34), 2008 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 24 |
| Tweed and Ceaser (37), 2005 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 23 |
| Noble et al. (36), 2009 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 22 |
| Lelie et al. (35), 2000 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 21 |
Scores for each category are out of 4, with 1=very poor; 2=poor; 3=fair, and 4=good.