Table 3.
MMAT
| Name of study author | Type of study | Methodological quality criteria | Yes | Comments | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abass (2018) [16] | Mixed methods | 5.1. Is the mixed methods research design relevant to address the qualitative and quantitative research questions (or objectives), or the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the mixed methods question (or objective)? | Y | not clear | 75% |
| 5.2. Is the integration of qualitative and quantitative data (or results*) relevant to address the research question (objective)? | Y | ||||
| 5.3. Is appropriate consideration given to the limitations associated with this integration, e.g., the divergence of qualitative and quantitative data (or results*) in a triangulation design? | N | ||||
| Aiemjoy et al. 2017 [17] | Quantitative cross sectional | 4.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the quantitative research question (quantitative aspect of the mixed methods question)? | Y | 100% | |
| 4.2. Is the sample representative of the population understudy? | Y | ||||
| 4.3. Are measurements appropriate (clear origin, or validity known, or standard instrument)? | Y | ||||
| 4.4. Is there an acceptable response rate (60% or above)? | Y | ||||
| Biran (2011) [7] | Qualitative | 1.1. Are the sources of qualitative data (archives, documents, informants, observations) relevant to address the research question (objective)? | Y | Nothing on analysis | 50% |
| 1.2. Is the process for analysing qualitative data relevant to address the research question (objective)? | N | ||||
| 1.3. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to the context, e.g., the setting, in which the data were collected? | Y | ||||
| 1.4. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to researchers’ influence, e.g., through their interactions with participants? | N | ||||
| Breese et al., (2016) | Qualitative | 1.1. Are the sources of qualitative data (archives, documents, informants, observations) relevant to address the research question (objective)? | Y | 100% | |
| 1.2. Is the process for analyzing qualitative data relevant to address the research question (objective)? | Y | ||||
| 1.3. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to the context, e.g., the setting, in which the data were collected? | Y | ||||
| 1.4. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to researchers’ influence, e.g., through their interactions with participants? | Y | ||||
| Cantrell, (2013) [19] | Quantitative descriptive Survey | 4.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the quantitative research question (quantitative aspect of the mixed methods question)? | Y | 100% | |
| 4.2. Is the sample representative of the population understudy? | Y | ||||
| 4.3. Are measurements appropriate (clear origin, or validity known, or standard instrument)? | Y | ||||
| 4.4. Is there an acceptable response rate (60% or above)? applicable, an acceptable response rate (60% or above), or an acceptable | Y | ||||
| Chisanga et al. 2018 [20] | Quantitative cross sectional | 4.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the quantitative research question (quantitative aspect of the mixed methods question)? | Y | 100% | |
| 4.2. Is the sample representative of the population understudy? | Y | ||||
| 4.3. Are measurements appropriate (clear origin, or validity known, or standard instrument)? | Y | ||||
| 4.4. Is there an acceptable response rate (60% or above)? | Y | ||||
| Chiziwisano et al., 2019 | Mixed methods | 5.1. Is the mixed methods research design relevant to address the qualitative and quantitative research questions (or objectives), or the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the mixed methods question (or objective)? | Y | 100% | |
| 5.2. Is the integration of qualitative and quantitative data (or results*) relevant to address the research question (objective)? | Y | ||||
| 5.3. Is appropriate consideration given to the limitations associated with this integration, e.g., the divergence of qualitative and quantitative data (or results*) in a triangulation design? | Y | ||||
| Christensen et al. (2015) [22] | Randomized controlled trial | 2.1. Is there a clear description of the randomization (or an appropriate sequence generation)? | Y | 100% | |
| 2.2. Is there a clear description of the allocation concealment (or blinding when applicable)? | Y | ||||
| 2.3. Are there complete outcome data (80% or above)? | Y | ||||
| 2.4. Is there low withdrawal/drop-out (below 20%)? | Y | ||||
| Contzen et al. (2015) [23] | Quasi-experiment | 2.1. Is there a clear description of the randomization (or an appropriate sequence generation)? | Y | 75% | |
| 2.2. Is there a clear description of the allocation concealment (or blinding when applicable)? | N | ||||
| 2.3. Are there complete outcome data (80% or above)? | Y | ||||
| 2.4. Is there low withdrawal/drop-out (below 20%)? | Y | ||||
| Dajaan et al. (2018) [24] |
Quantitative cross sectional |
4.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the quantitative research question (quantitative aspect of the mixed methods question)? | Y | 100% | |
| 4.2. Is the sample representative of the population understudy? | Y | ||||
| 4.3. Are measurements appropriate (clear origin, or validity known, or standard instrument)? | Y | ||||
| 4.4. Is there an acceptable response rate (60% or above)? applicable, an acceptable response rate (60% or above), or an acceptable | Y | ||||
| Hurtado (1994) [25] | Qualitative | 1. Are the sources of qualitative data (archives, documents, informants, observations) relevant to address the research question (objective)? | Y | not clear | 75% |
| 1.2. Is the process for analysing qualitative data relevant to address the research question (objective)? | Y | ||||
| 1.3. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to the context, e.g., the setting, in which the data were collected? | Y | ||||
| 1.4. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to researchers’ influence, e.g., through their interactions with participants? | N | ||||
| Kamuteera et al. 2018 [26] | Quantitative cross sectional survey | 4.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the quantitative research question (quantitative aspect of the mixed methods question)? | Y | not clear | 75% |
| 4.2. Is the sample representative of the population understudy? | Y | ||||
| 4.3. Are measurements appropriate (clear origin, or validity known, or standard instrument)? | Y | ||||
| 4.4. Is there an acceptable response rate (60% or above)? applicable, an acceptable response rate (60% or above), or an acceptable | N | ||||
| Mbuya et al., (2015) [27] | Qualitative | 1.1. Are the sources of qualitative data (archives, documents, informants, observations) relevant to address the research question (objective)? | Y | 75% | |
| 1.2. Is the process for analyzing qualitative data relevant to address the research question (objective)? | Y | ||||
| 1.3. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to the context, e.g., the setting, in which the data were collected? | Y | ||||
| 1.4. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to researchers’ influence, e.g., through their interactions with participants? | N | ||||
| Musoke et all. 2018 [28] | Mixed methods | 5.1. Is the mixed methods research design relevant to address the qualitative and quantitative research questions (or objectives), or the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the mixed methods question (or objective)? | Y | Superficial analysis procedures reported | 75% |
| 5.2. Is the integration of qualitative and quantitative data (or results*) relevant to address the research question (objective)? | Y | ||||
| 5.3. Is appropriate consideration given to the limitations associated with this integration, e.g., the divergence of qualitative and quantitative data (or results*) in a triangulation design? | N | ||||
| Mwakitalima (2018) [29] | Quantitative cross sectional | 3.1. Are participants (organizations) recruited in a way that minimizes selection bias? | Y | 5KM apart | 100% |
| 3.2. Are measurements appropriate (clear origin, or validity known, or standard instrument; and absence of contamination between groups when appropriate) regarding the exposure/intervention and outcomes? | Y | ||||
| 3.3. In the groups being compared (exposed vs. non-exposed; with intervention vs. without; cases vs. controls), are the participants comparable, or do researchers take into account (control for) the difference between these groups? | Y | ||||
| 3.4. Are there complete outcome data (80% or above), and, when applicable, an acceptable response rate (60% or above), or an acceptable follow-up rate for cohort studies (depending on the duration of follow-up)? | Y | ||||
| Pietropaoli (2017) [30] | Qualitative | 1.1. Are the sources of qualitative data (archives, documents, informants, observations) relevant to address the research question (objective)? | Y | Nothing on analysis | 50% |
| 1.2. Is the process for analyzing qualitative data relevant to address the research question (objective)? | N | ||||
| 1.3. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to the context, e.g., the setting, in which the data were collected? | Y | ||||
| 1.4. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to researchers’ influence, e.g., through their interactions with participants? | N | ||||
| Shukla (2018) [31] | Quantitative descriptive | 4.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the quantitative research question (quantitative aspect of the mixed methods question)? | Y | Info not given | 75% |
| 4.2. Is the sample representative of the population understudy? | Y | ||||
| 4.3. Are measurements appropriate (clear origin, or validity known, or standard instrument)? | Y | ||||
| 4.4. Is there an acceptable response rate (60% or above)? | N | ||||
| Singh et al. (2016) [32] | Qualitative | 1.1. Are the sources of qualitative data (archives, documents, informants, observations) relevant to address the research question (objective)? | Y | 100% | |
| 1.2. Is the process for analysing qualitative data relevant to address the research question (objective)? | Y | ||||
| 1.3. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to the context, e.g., the setting, in which the data were collected? | Y | ||||
| 1.4. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to researchers’ influence, e.g., through their interactions with participants? | Y | ||||
| Singh et al. (2016b) [33] | Randomised controlled trial | 2.1. Is there a clear description of the randomization (or an appropriate sequence generation)? | Y | 75% | |
| 2.2. Is there a clear description of the allocation concealment (or blinding when applicable)? | N | ||||
| 2.3. Are there complete outcome data (80% or above)? | Y | ||||
| 2.4. Is there low withdrawal/drop-out (below 20%)? | Y | ||||
| Zhang et al. (2013) [34] | Randomized controlled trial | 2.1. Is there a clear description of the randomization (or an appropriate sequence generation)? | Y | 75% | |
| 2.2. Is there a clear description of the allocation concealment (or blinding when applicable)? | N | ||||
| 2.3. Are there complete outcome data (80% or above)? | Y | ||||
| 2.4. Is there low withdrawal/drop-out (below 20%)? | Y |
*Both qualitative and quantitative results