Table 4.
Assessing the quality of the papers
| (A) Assessing the quality of the quantitative studies through using EPHPP (Effective Public Health Practice Project) tool (yes = 1, no = 0) | ||||||||||||
| Author(s) & Year of publication | Selection Bias | Study Design | Confounders | Blinding | Data Collection Methods | Withdrawals & Drop-outs | Intervention Integrity | Analyses | Scores Attained | Ratings (1–3 = weak, 4–6 = moderate, 7–8 = strong) | ||
| Chumchai et al., 2015 [7] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | strong | ||
| Shanbhag & Bobby, 2012 [8] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | strong | ||
| Chen et al., 2017 [6] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | strong | ||
| Padmini & Venmathi, 2012 [22] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | moderate | ||
| Makurat et al., 2016 [11] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | strong | ||
| Parimalam et al., 2007 [27] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | strong | ||
| Ahmed & Raihan, 2014 [4] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | strong | ||
| Fatema et al., 2014 [29] | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | moderate | ||
| Hasnain et al., 2014 [26] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | strong | ||
| Rahman & Rahman, 2013 [28] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 | moderate | ||
| Steinisch et al., 2013 [10] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | strong | ||
| Steinisch et al., 2014 [31] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | strong | ||
| Khan et al., 2015 [24] | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | moderate | ||
| Fitch et al., 2017 [25] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | strong | ||
| Akhter et al., 2010 [23] | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 | moderate | ||
| Fitch et al., 2015 [30] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | strong | ||
| (B) Assessing the quality of the quantitative part of mixed-method studies through using EPHPP (Effective Public Health Practice Project) tool (yes = 1, no = 0) | ||||||||||||
| Saha et al., 2010 [9] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | strong | ||
| De Silva et al., 2013 [32] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | strong | ||
| Lombardo et al., 2012 [17] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | strong | ||
| (C) Assessing the quality of the qualitative part of mixed-method studies through using CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) tool (yes = 1, no = 0) | ||||||||||||
| Author(s) & Year of publication | Clear research goal/aims | Appropriate methodology | Appropriate research design | Appropriate recruitment strategy | Justification of the way of data collection | Researcher & participants relationship considered | Consideration of ethical issues | Rigorous data analysis | Explicit findings | Value of research | Scores attained | Ratings (1–4 = weak, 5–8 = moderate, 9–10 = strong) |
| Saha et al., 2010 [9] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | strong |
| De Silva et al., 2013 [32] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | strong |
| Lombardo et al., 2012 [17] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | strong |