Table 2.
Results from the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment checklist
| Author (year) | Study addressed a clearly focused issue | Appropriateness of qualitative method | Design | Recruitment | Consideration of relationship between research and participants | Ethical issues | Rigour of data analysis | Clarity of statement of findings | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burgess et al (2015)15 | ● | ● | ● | • | ∙ | • | ● | ● | High |
| Ellis et al (2015)14 | ● | ● | ● | ● | • | • | ● | ● | High |
| Health Diagnostics (2014)16 | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | Low |
| NHS Greenwich (2011)17 | ● | ● | ● | • | ∙ | ∙ | ∙ | • | Medium |
| Jenkinson et al (2015)19 | ● | ● | ● | ● | ∙ | ● | ● | ● | High |
| Krska et al (2015)20 | ● | ● | • | ● | n/a | • | • | • | Medium |
| McDermott et al (2016)18 | • | ∙ | • | ∙ | ∙ | • | ∙ | • | Low |
| Oswald et al (2010)13 | ● | ● | ● | • | ∙ | • | • | • | Medium |
| Taylor et al (2012)12 | ● | • | ● | ● | ∙ | • | ∙ | • | Medium |
∙= Low. • = Medium. ● = High.