Table 2.

Critical Appraisal Skill Programme (CASP) assessment of the methodological limitations of included studies

CASP criteria	No* (%) (n=69)	References of studies Reporting each criteria
1. Was there a clear statement of the aims?	64 (93)	14 20–29 31–54 56 57 59–67 69–76 79–87
2. Is qualitative method appropriate?	67 (97)	14 20–29 31–35 37 38 40–57 59–67 69–77 79–87
3. Was the research design appropriate?	66 (96)	14 20 21 23 26 27 29–38 40 41 43–46 48–51 54–69 71–87 24 25 42 47 52 53 70
4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate?	49 (71)	20 21 23 25–31 36–38 41–48 50 51 54 55 57–61 63–70 72–75 77 79 80 83–86
5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?	28 (41)	23–28 32 34 36 41–44 47 50–52 54 57 61 64 69 70 74–77 85
6. Was the researcher-participant relationship considered?	36 (52)	20 21 26–28 32–34 36 37 41 42 45 47 50 57–61 63 65 67 69–74 77 81 83–87
7. Have the ethical issues been taken into consideration?	51 (74)	21–26 29–34 36–39 41–44 46 48–52 54–61 64 65 68–75 77 79–81 83 84 87
8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?	32 (46)	14 21 22 25–29 33 35 36 41 43–45 48 51 52 54–57 64 66 68 71 75–77 81 84
9. Is there a clear statement of findings?	35 (51)	20 22 23 25–27 32 36 38 41–54 57 61 64 65 69–71 75–77 79 85
10. How valuable is the research?	50 (72)	14 23 27 31–34 36–41 43 45–48 50–60 63–67 69–77 79 80 83–87

*Number of studies meeting the criterion.