Table 2.

Quality appraisal of included studies

	Congruity between philosophy and methodology?	Congruity between methodology and research question or objectives?	Congruity between methodology and data collection methods?	Congruity between methodology and representation and data analysis?	Congruity between methodology and interpretation of results?	Is there a statement locating the researcher culturally or theoretically?	Is the researchers’ influence on the research, and vice- versa, addressed?	Are participants, and their voices, adequately represented?	Is there evidence of ethical approval by an appropriate body?	Do the conclusions flow from the analysis, or interpretation, of the data?	Overall quality score
Qualitative
Crabtree (2007)	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	0	1	9
Gray (2002)	1	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	0	1	7
Resch et al. (2010)	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	7
Dababnah and Parish (2013)	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	7
Broady et al. (2018)	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	7

	Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population?	Were study participants sampled in an appropriate way?	Was the sample size adequate?	Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail?	Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample?	Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition?	Was the condition measured in a standard, reliable way for all participants?	Was there appropriate statistical analysis?	Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately?	Overall quality score
Quantitative
Chan and Lam (2017)	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	4
Dehvani et al. (2011)	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	2
Mak and Kwok (2010)	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	6
Werner and Shulman (2013)	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	6
Wong et al. (2016)	1	1	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	6
Ting et al. (2018)	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	4
Chan and Lam (2018)	0	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	0	4

Key: 1 =  Yes; 0 =  No/unclear