Table 2.

Quality of the 23 studies reviewed

1st author, publication date	Study Designa	Summary Score for Quality Critique
Quantitative (Modified Downs and Black, 1998)
Beletsky, 2011 [59]	RXS	73.7% (14/19)
Beletsky, 2013 [65]	XS	63.2% (12/19)
Beletsky, 2012 [66]	XS	63.2% (12/19)
Du, 2011 [42]	XS	73.7% (14/19)
Ellen, 2015 [60]	RXS	68.4% (13/19)
Fang, 2004 [64]	RXS	73.7% (14/19)
Grangeiro, 2011 [67]	RXSB	73.7% (14/19)
Homaifar, 2005 [56]	XS	26.3% (5/19)
Martinez, 2007 [61]	RXS	57.9% (11/19)
Rich, 2007 [62]	RXSB	63.2% (12/19)
Sarnquist, 2007 [43]	RXS	57.9% (11/19)
van Rensburg, 2007 [58]	XS	63.2% (12/19)
Qualitative (Spencer et al. 2003)
Argento, 2011 [63]	QP	88.9% (16/18)
Dworkin, 2014 [55]	QP	77.8% (14/18)
Jones, 2005 [57]	QP	61.1% (11/18)
Mixed Methods (Spencer et al. 2003)
Gruskin, 2013 [25]	QPC	88.9% (16/18)
Jardine, 2012 [49]	QPC	66.7% (12/18)
Other
Ahmad, 2013 [51]	PR	n/a
Ainsworth, 2003 [52]	PR	n/a
Gruskin, 2009 [53]	PR	n/a
Gurnani, 2011 [54]	PMD	n/a
Jeffreys, 2011 [50]	PR	n/a
Lazariu, 2015 [44]	PMD	n/a

^aStudy design abbreviations: XS = observational cross-section RXS = observational repeated cross-sections; QP = qualitative post-test only; MM = mixed methods; PR = policy review; PMD = program monitoring data; ^B These studies included a comparison population drawn from cross-sectional data collected in areas where the policy/intervention was not being implemented; ^C The quantitative data included in these studies was drawn from document reviews and/or program monitoring data, we therefore decided to assess their quality based on the qualitative assessment tool; N/a = these studies could not be scored using either method as they either relied solely on monitoring data to evaluate the intervention, or were policy reviews, which analysed data from multiple previously published studies