Table 2.

Quality assessment of the 36 studies

Study reference	Study design	Summary score for quality assessment
Qualitative methods (Spencer et al. [15])
Ameyan et al. [47]	QL	61% (11/18)
Beattie et al. [48]	QL	72% (13/18)
Burke et al. [54]	QL	61% (11/18)
Chanda et al. [49]	QL	67% (12/18)
Dugas et al. [29]	QL	50% (9/18)
King et al. [46]	QL	50% (9/18)
Ngo et al. [50]	QL	72% (13/18)
Scorgie et al. [52]	QL	67% (12/18)
Wang et al. [41]	QL	67% (12/18)
Wanyenze et al. [51]	QL	72% (13/18)
Quantitative methods (modified Downs and Black [16])
Batona et al. [28]	QN	56% (14/25)
Bengtson et al. [27]	QN	52% (13/25)
Chiao et al. [45]	QN	72% (18/25)
Dandona et al. [18]	QN	40% (10/25)
Deering et al. [25]	QN	60% (15/25)
Grayman et al. [30]	QN	48% (12/25)
Hong et al. [31]	QN	52% (13/25)
Johnston et al. [40]	QN	64% (16/25)
King et al. [46]	QN	52% (13/25)
Nhurod et al. [43]	QN	56% (14/25)
Parriault et al. [17]	QN	36% (9/25)
Shokoohi et al. [35]	QN	56% (14/25)
Shokoohi et al. [35]	QN	60% (15/25)
Todd et al. [32]	QN	52% (13/25)
Tran et al. [33]	QN	52% (13/25)
Wang et al. [19]	QN	48% (12/25)
Wang et al. [20]	QN	48% (12/25)
Wilson et al. [21]	QN, mathematical modeling	n/a
Xun et al. [42]	QN	56% (14/25)
Xu et al. [23]	QN	64% (16/25)
Mixed methods (modified Downs and Black [16])
Aho et al. [26]	QN & QL	68% (17/25)
King et al. [34]	QN & QL	48 (12/25)
Abstracts
Deering et al. [37]	QN	n/a
Park et al. [38]	QN	n/a
Sayarifard et al. [36]	QN	n/a
Simonovikj et al. [53]	Case report	n/a

QL qualitative, QN quantitative