Table 5.
Summary of quality assessments—before and after studies*
| Study | Clear objective | Selection criteria: clear and prespecified | Participants representative | All eligible participants enrolled | Sufficient sample size | Intervention: clear and consistently | Outcomes: clear, prespecified, valid, reliable and consistently assessed | Blind outcome assessment | Loss to follow-up <20%. Loss to follow-up accounted for | Stats methods used. P values reported | Multiple measures of outcome | Group level statistical analysis | Quality rating—quantitative outcomes† |
| Donovan et al, 200235 | Y | Y | Y | Y | ? | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | FAIR |
| Donovan et al, 200936 | Y | Y | Y | Y | ? | Y | Y | N | Y | All sites: N Underperforming sites: Y |
Y | N | FAIR |
| Lane et al, 201137 | Y | Y | Y | Y | ? | Y | N | N | Y | Y | NA | N | POOR |
| Moinpour et al, 200046 | Y | Y | Y | ? | ? | N | Y | N | ? | N | NA | N | POOR |
| Wallace et al, 200650 | Y | Y | Y | Y | ? | Y | Y | N | Y | N | NA | N | FAIR |
† Quality rated as good, fair or poor with respect to the quantitative recruitment-related outcomes of interest in this systematic review.
*Quality assessment checklists adapted from Study Quality Assessment Tools: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (available from: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools).
?, not reported/unable to determine; N, no; NA, not applicable; Y, yes.