Table 2.
Assessment of the methodological quality of each included study
| 1. Sample representative for the target population? | 2. Sample included in the study in a valid and reliable way? | 3. Adequate explanation whether the respondents differed from non-responders? | 4. Is there an acceptable response rate (70% or above)? | 5. Are measurements appropriate? | 6. Is data collection standardized? | 7. Is data analysis standardized? | 8. Are the results relevant for clinical practice? | 9. Are the results in line with other available studies? | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surveysa | ||||||||||
| AL-Qudimat, MR, 2011 [28] | + | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Ball SD, 2005 [29] | + | + | ? | ? | – | + | + | + | + | |
| Ben Arush, 2006 [30] | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Fernandez C, 1998 [31] | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Gagnon EM, 2003 [32] | + | + | ? | ? | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Gozum S, 2007 [33] | + | + | ? | – | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Ladas EJ, 2014 [34] | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Laengler A, 2008 [35] | + | + | ? | – | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Magi T, 2015 [18] | + | + | + | – | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Molassiotis A, 2004 [36] | + | + | – | – | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Ndao DH, 2013 [37] | + | + | – | ? | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Olbara G, 2018 [38] | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Rajanandh MG, 2018 [39] | + | ? | – | ? | – | + | + | + | – | |
| Singendonk M, 2013 [40] | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Susilawati D, 2016 [41] | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| Turhan AB, 2016 [10] | + | + | ? | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| 1. Is the source of the opinion clearly identified? | 2. Does the source of the opinion have standing in the field of expertise? | 3. Are the interests of the relevant population the central focus of the opinion? | 4. Is the stated position the result of an analytical process? | 5. Is there reference to the extant literature? | 6. Is any incongruence with the literature/sources logically defended? | |||||
| Expert opinionsb | ||||||||||
| Agapito J, 2000 [42] | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||
| The American Academy of Paediatrics, 2001 [43] | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||
| Clayton MF, 2006 [44] | + | + | + | + | + | ? | ||||
| Gilmour J, 2011 [45] | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||
| Tautz C, 2005 [46] | + | + | + | + | + | + | ||||
| 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 study? | 5. Was the data collection in a way that addressed the research issue? | 6. Is relationship between researcher and participants 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. Is the research valuable? | |
| Qualitative studiesc | ||||||||||
| Bold J, 2001 [47] | + | ? | + | + | ? | – | ? | – | – | + |
| Fletcher PC, 2004 [48] | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | ? | + | + |
| Krogstad T, 2007 [49] | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | – | + | – |
(+) = Yes
(−) = No
(?) = Uncertain/Unable to assess
Assessed according to the following checklists: aThe Joanna Briggs Institute (2017): Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews. Checklist for Analytical Cross Sectional Studies. bThe Joanna Briggs Institute (2017): Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews. Checklist for Text and Opinion, and cCritical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative research (accessed 2019)