Table 2.

Quality Assessment Tool of Included Studies.

Study	Sherr et al, 201415	Miech et al, 201517	Gimbel et al, 201621	Hung, 201618	Hung et al, 201719	Ashok et al, 201820	Daaleman et al, 201822	Means et al, 201816
Relevance of Study Question
Research question explicitly stated	2	1	2	1	2	2	1	2
Research question justified and linked to the existing knowledge base (empirical research, theory, policy)	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Appropriateness of Qualitative Method
Study design described and justified: Why was a particular method chosen?	2	1	2	1	1	2	1	2
Transparency of Procedures
Sampling
Criteria for selecting the study sample justified and explained (eg, theoretical sampling, purposive sampling)	2	0	2	1	2	0	1	2
Recruitment
Details of how recruitment was conducted and by whom	2	0	2	0	2	0	0	2
Details of who chose not to participate and why	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
Data collection
Data collection method outlined and examples given	2	1	2	1	1	1	1	2
Study group and setting clearly described	2	1	2	1	2	1	1	2
End of data collection justified and described	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0
Role of researchers
Do the researchers occupy dual roles (clinician and researcher)?	1	0	2	0	2	0	0	2
Are the ethics of this discussed? Do the researcher(s) critically examine their own influence on the formulation of the research question, data collection, and interpretation?	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Ethics
Informed consent process explicitly and clearly detailed	2	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Anonymity and confidentiality discussed	0	0	0	0	2	0	0	2
Ethics approval cited	2	0	0	0	2	0	2	2
Soundness of Interpretive Approach
Analysis
Analytic approach described in depth and justified (thematic analysis, grounded theory, or framework approach)	2	0	2	0	2	1	1	2
Are the interpretations clearly presented and adequately supported by the evidence? Indicators of quality: Description of how themes were derived from the data (inductive or deductive) Evidence of alternative explanations being sought Analysis and presentation of negative or deviant cases	N/A	1	2	1	2	0	1	N/A
Are quotes used and are these appropriate and effective? Illumination of context and/or meaning, richly detailed	N/A	0	0	0	2	0	0	N/A
Method of reliability check described and justified (eg, was an audit trail, triangulation, or member checking employed? Did an independent analyst review data and contest themes? How were disagreements resolved?)	0	1	2	0	1	0	0	2
Discussion and presentation
Findings presented with reference to existing theoretical and empirical literature and how they contribute	N/A	2	2	2	2	2	2	N/A
Strengths and limitations explicitly described and discussed	N/A	0	2	0	2	2	2	N/A
Is the manuscript well written and accessible?	2	1	2	1	2	2	2	2
Total Score	24	11	29	11	36	15	17	30