Table 2.

CASP critical appraisal of studies included in this review (n = 9)

1stAuthor(year of study)	CASP criterion a
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Total Score b
Peck et al.,(2013) [5]	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	19
Njau et al., (2011) [15]	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	1	18
vanRooyen et al.,(2015) [21]	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	19
Choko et al., (2016) [22]	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	19
Makusha et al., (2013) [23]	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	19
Jennings et al., (2015) [24]	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	19
Kumwenda et al.,(2013) [25]	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	19
Knight et al.(2017) [26]	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	19
Indravudh et al., (2016) [27]	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	19

^aCASP criterion: 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 aims of the research? 4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? 5. Was 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?^bCASP critical score: a) Criterion is completely met = 2; b) criterion is partially met = 1; c) criterion not applicable, not met, or not mentioned = 0; Total score 20 = high quality; 16–19 moderate quality; ≤ 15 low quality