Table 2.

Quality assessment of the seven systematic reviews.¹¹

Authors	Are the results of the review valid?					What are the results?		Will the results help locally?
	Review addressed a clearly focused issue	Search relevant	Important and relevant studies included	Rigorous assessment of quality of included studies	Reasonable to combine results of review	Overall results of review	Precision of results appropriate	Applicable to local population	All important outcomes considered
Van Ruth et al.14	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, pooled if homogenous (for one review question) but noted high risk of bias in some studies	Very clear presentation of results according to aim	Yes (pooled data)	N/A	Yes
Kroezen et al.12	Yes	Partially (peer reviewed literature less appropriate for some questions, e.g. extent of legal, educational conditions)	Partially	No explicit coverage of quality assessment	N/A as no meta-analysis or meta-synthesis	Very clear presentation of results according to aim	N/A as no pooling	N/A	Yes
Gielen et al.15	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, pooled if homogenous but noted high risk of bias in some studies	Very clear presentation of results according to aim	Yes (pooled data)	N/A	Yes
Darvishpour et al.16	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, qualitative meta-synthesis	Very clear presentation of results according to aim	N/A for meta-synthesis	N/A	Yes
McIntosh et al.17	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, qualitative meta-synthesis	Very clear presentation of results according to aim	N/A for meta-synthesis	N/A	Yes
Ness et al.13	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No meta-synthesis of qualitative studies given	Very clear presentation of results according to aim	N/A for meta-synthesis (although not conducted)	N/A	Yes
Weeks et al.18	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes, pooled if homogenous but noted high risk of bias in some studies	Very clear presentation of results according to aim	Yes (pooled data)	N/A	Yes

N/A, not applicable.