Table A1 Critical appraisal of the included studies (n = 17) by the three authors working independently with the CASP Qualitative Checklist criteria (CASP, 2013)
| Author | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Almutairi et al. (2015) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | High |
| 2 Connor and Miller (2014) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| 3 Estacio and Saidy‐Khan (2014) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Moderate |
| 4 Kishi et al. (2014) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| 5 Xiao et al. (2014) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| 6 Zhou (2014) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| 7 Alexis (2013) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| 8 Lin (2013) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | U | Moderate |
| 9 Wheeler et al. (2013) | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | U | U | U | Moderate |
| 10 Alexis and Shillingford (2011) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| 11 Jose (2011) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| 12 Liou and Cheng (2011) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | High |
| 13 Smith et al. (2011) | |||||||||||
| 14 Allan (2010) | Y | Y | Y | U | U | N | U | U | Y | U | Moderate |
| 15 Tregunno et al. (2009) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | U | Y | Y | Moderate |
| 16 Xu et al. (2008) | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | High |
| 17 Magnusdottir (2005) | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | U | U | U | Y | Y | Moderate |
Y, Yes; U, Uncrtain; N, No.Screening questions: 1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? 2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? 3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aim of the research? 4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? 5. Were the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? 6. Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered? 7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? 8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? 9. Is there a clear statement of findings? 10. How valuable is the research?