Table 3. Quality Assessment and Intervention Efficacy, Review of Studies on Increasing Filipino American Participation in Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Programs, United States, 2004–2016.
| Source | QA Scorea | Effectivenessb | Reachb | Feasibilityb | Sustainabilityb | Transferabilityb | Total Impact Scorec |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dirige et al, 2013 (28) | 8 | 3.7 | 3.3 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 1.7 | 2.9 |
| Ursua et al, 2014 (29) | 8 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 2.0 | 3.3 | 2.8 |
| Bender et al, 2016 (27) | 8 | 1.3 | 3.7 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| Fernandes et al, 2012 (22) | 7 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 2.7 | 1.7 | 3.3 | 2.5 |
| Tomioka et al, 2012 (25) | 7 | 3.3 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 3.7 | 3.2 |
| Tomioka et al, 2014 (26) | 7 | 3.7 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 3.7 | 3.1 |
| Inouye et al, 2014 (23); Leake et al, 2012 (24) | 6 | 2.7 | 2.3 | 3.0 | 1.7 | 2.3 | 2.4 |
a
Quality assessment (QA) score is the total number (of 9) of quality criteria met by study. Total scores translated as <5 = limited quality; 5–7 = fair quality; and 8–9 = good quality.
b
Effectiveness, reach, feasibility, sustainability, and transferability, scored from 1 = low to 4 = high.
c
Total impact score is the mean of effectiveness, reach, feasibility, sustainability, and transferability scores for the intervention. Total scores translated as <2 = low impact; 2–3 = moderate impact; >3 = high impact.