Table 2.
Systematic review quality assessment: Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklist (n=15) (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, 2018).
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ford et al. (2013) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | C | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Alkhalili et al. (2017) | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | C | Y | Y | Y |
| Watson et al. (2019a) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Watson et al. (2019b) | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Jiménez-Mangual et al. (2019) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | C | Y | Y | Y | N |
| Austin et al. (2007) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y |
| Chin et al. (2004) | Y | Y | Y | C | C | N | C | C | Y | C |
| Nazar and Nazar (2020) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Ford et al. (2014) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | C | Y | Y | Y |
| Armitstead and Burton (2006) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | Y | C |
| Awad and Cocchio (2015) | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | N | Y | N | Y | Y |
| Watson et al. (2020) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | C | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Zheng et al. (2020) | Y | Y | Y | Y | C | C | Y | C | N | Y |
| Meghana et al. (2020) | Y | Y | Y | N | N | C | C | C | Y | C |
| Bahlol and Dewey (2020) | Y | Y | Y | C | C | Y | Y | Y | Y | C |
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 research?
5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?
6. Has the relationship between researcher and participants been 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. How valuable is the research?
Abbreviation: N: No, Y: Yes, C: Cannot tell