Table 2.
Quality assessment of individual studies
| Author/ year of publication | Study methods (5 points) | Sampling (2 points) | Participant characteristics (3 points) | TM use (6 points) | Total points awarded (Max = 16) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recall bias (2 pts) (2 = low risk if data collection was prospective; 1 = some risk if data collection is retrospective within previous 12 months; 0 = high risk) | Piloted questionnaire or interview schedule (1 pt) | Address potential source of bias (1 pt) | Adjust for potential confounders (1 pt) | Response rate (1 pt) | Representative sampling (1 pt) | Specific diagnosis (1 pt) | Indicator of socioeconomic status (0.5 pt) | Age (0.5 pt) | Ethnicity (0.5 pt) | Gender (0.5 pt) | TM definition (2 pts) | Use of TM modalities assessed (1 pt) | Frequency/duration of TM use (1 pt) | Reasons for TM use (2 pts) | ||
| Banda et al., 2007 [26] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 (31.3%) |
| Bayisa et al., 2014 [27] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 6 (37.5%) |
| Duru et al., 2016 [28] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 (43.8%) |
| Elkhoudri et al., 2016 [29] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 6.5 (40.6%) |
| Fakeye et al.,2009 [30] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 1a | 1 | 0 | 2 | 9.5 (59.4.6%) |
| Kaadaaga et al., 2014 [31] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 9 (56.3%) |
| Lalego et al., 2016 [32] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5.5 (34.4%) |
| Mabina et al., 1997 [33] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4.5 (28.1%) |
| Mbura et al., 1985 [42] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 7.5 (46.9%) |
| Mothupi and Carol 2014 [7] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 1a | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5.5 (34.4%) |
| Mugomeri et al., 2015 [34] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 7.5 (46.9%) |
| Mureye et al., 2012 [35] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1a | 1 | 1 | 0 | 8 (50%) |
| Nergard et al., 2015 [36] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 6.5 (40.6%) |
| Nyeko et al., 2016 [37] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 6.5 (40.6%) |
| Orief et al., 2014 [38] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 5.5 (34.4%) |
| Rasch et al., 2014 [39] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 4.5 (28.1%) |
| Sarmiento et al., 2016 [40] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 (25%) |
| Tamuno et al., 2011 [41] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5.5 (34.4%) |
aStudies that explained the definition of TM or provided list of TM modalities to their participants