Table 3.
Evaluation of the quality of the studies according to the Critical Appraisal Skill Programme (CASP) from Ref. (22).
| Criteria | Totally meta | Partially meta | Not meta |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? | 41 | 3 | 0 |
| 2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? | 41 | 3 | 0 |
| 3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? | 39 | 5 | 0 |
| 4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? | 31 | 10 | 3 |
| 5. Were the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? | 37 | 6 | 1 |
| 6. Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered? | 25 | 10 | 9 |
| 7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? | 36 | 1 | 7 |
| 8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? | 24 | 16 | 4 |
| 9. Is there a clear statement of findings? | 28 | 9 | 7 |
| 10. How valuable is the research? | 29 | 15 | 0 |
aNumber of studies.