Table 6.
Quality appraisal of included qualitative studies (n = 16)
| First author (year) | Wallace criteria | Total # Yes ratings | Overall rating | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 2b | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |||
| Ahmed (2011) [40] | Y | N | CT | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | 10 | Moderate |
| Alexander (1995) [41] | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | P | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | CT | 8 | Moderate |
| Anderson (2011) [42] | Y | Y | CT | Y | Y | CT | P | P | N | N | P | Y | P | 5 | Weak |
| Block (2012) [24] Block (2009) [25] Gibbs (2013) [26] Townsend (2014) [43] |
Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | P | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y | 11 | Strong |
| Bowker (2007) [44] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | P | Y | Y | P | Y | Y | Y | P | 10 | Moderate |
| Chawla (2014) [11] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | P | Y | Y | Y | Y | P | Y | Y | 11 | Strong |
| Chiumento (2012) [12] | Y | P | CT | Y | Y | P | P | P | Y | Y | N | NA | P | 5 | Weak |
| Cutter-Mackenzie (2009) [45] | Y | N | CT | Y | Y | P | Y | P | N | Y | Y | Y | P | 7 | Moderate |
| Hazzard (2011) [46] | Y | N | CT | Y | P | P | P | P | Y | P | N | N | P | 3 | Weak |
| Henryks (2011) [47] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | P | Y | Y | P | NA | P | 8 | Moderate |
| Lakin (2008) [48] | Y | N | CT | Y | Y | P | Y | CT | N | P | N | Y | N | 5 | Weak |
| Miller (2007) [49] | Y | N | CT | Y | Y | CT | Y | Y | P | P | N | N | N | 5 | Weak |
| Ming Wei (2012) [13] | Y | Y | CT | Y | Y | P | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | NA | Y | 10 | Moderate |
| Passy (2010) [50] | Y | N | CT | Y | Y | Y | Y | CT | N | Y | N | Y | P | 7 | Moderate |
| Somerset (2005) [51] | Y | N | CT | Y | N | CT | N | P | P | Y | N | N | CT | 3 | Weak |
| Viola (2006) [52] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | P | Y | P | N | P | Y | Y | Y | 9 | Moderate |
Where multiple publications reported qualitative data from the same study, they were appraised as one study
Y yes, P partial, N no, CT can’t tell, NA not applicable
Overall quality rating: strong (11–12 ratings Y); moderate (6–10 ratings Y); weak (1–5 ratings Y)
Legend for Table 6: Wallace criteria (Wallace et al. [18])
1. Is the research question clear?
2. Is the theoretical or ideological perspective of the author (or funder) explicit?
2b. Has this influenced the study design, methods or research findings?
3. Is the study design appropriate to answer the question?
4. Is the context or setting adequately described?
5. Is the sample adequate to explore the range of subjects and settings, and has it been drawn from an appropriate population?
6. Was the data collection adequately described?
7. Was data collection rigorously conducted to ensure confidence in the findings?
8. Was there evidence that the data analysis was rigorously conducted to ensure confidence in the findings?
9. Are the findings substantiated by the data?
10. Has consideration been given to any limitations of the methods or data that may have affected the results?
11. Do any claims to generalisability follow logically and theoretically from the data?
12. Have ethical issues been addressed and confidentiality respected?
The scoring system used above was adapted for the purposes of this review