Table 2.
Quality appraisal of included papers and their Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) score
| Qualitative | Quantitative | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author, year | Sources relevant to address research question | Analysis Process relevant to address research question | Findings adequately derived from data | Interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data | Sampling strategy reduce selection bias | Measuring appropriate for intervention /outcome | Sample representativeness | Acceptable response rate | Total points | Score | Quality |
| Vahidi et al. (2016) [3] | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | (2/4) | 50 | Moderate | ||||
| Gabriel, Aluko, and Okeme (2019) [15] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
| Zhu et al. (2014) [31] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
| Sahadevan et al. (2019) [26] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
| Jaafar et al. (2014) [24] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
| Gabriel and Mayers. (2019) [27] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate -strong | ||||
| Giray and Akyuz (2019) [28] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
| Moreno-Gonzalez et al. (2019) [29] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
| Hashemi-Ghasemabadi et al. (2016) [6] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (4/4) | 100 | Strong | ||||
| Mahadevan et al. (2013) [32] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
| Bahrami and Farzi (2014) [18] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
| Wulandari et al. (2017) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | (2/4) | 50 | Moderate | ||||
| Yeung et al. (2018) [30] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
| Heidari Gorji et al. (2012) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
| Yuanyuan An et al. (2019) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
| Nejad et al. (2016) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
| Din et al. (2017) [25] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
| Khanjari et al. (2014) [35] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
| Kusi et al. (2020) [4] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (4/4) | 100 | Strong | ||||
|
k; 0.9 (0.6–1.2) p < 0.05 |
k; 0.8 (0.5–1.1) p < 0.001 |
k; 1.0 (0.9–1.0) p = 0.001 |
k; 0.9 (0.7–1.1) p < 0.05 |
k; 0.79 (0.4–1.2) p < 0.001 |
k; 1.0 (0.9–1.0) p < 0.001 |
k; 1.0 (0.9–1.0) p < 0.001 |
k; 0.8 (0.4–1.2) p = 0.001 |
||||
Indicators: 0 criteria not met, 1 criteria met. Scale 1, 25% (one criterion met); scale 2, 50% (two criteria met); scale 3, 75% (three criteria met); scale 4, 100% (all criteria met)
k; Cohen’s kappa coefficient, 95% CI; 95% Confidence Interval, p; p-value