Table 2.

Quality Assessment

Study	Study Design	Sampling: Institutions	Sampling: Response Rate	Type of Data	Validity Evidence: Content	Validity Evidence: Internal Structure	Validity Evidence: Relationship to Other Variables	Data Analysis: Sophistication	Data Analysis: Appropriate	Outcome	Total
Acai 2019 34 , *	1	1.5	1	1	0	0	0	1	1	1	7.5
Ander 2012 14	1	0.5	0.5	3	1	0	1	2	1	2	12
Bedy 2019 15	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	0	1	1	1	2	12
Bord 2015 16	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	1	1	2	1	1.5	13.5
Brazil 2012 47	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	1	1	2	1	2	14
Bullard 2018 17	1.5	0.5	1.5	3	1	1	1	2	1	1.5	14
Chan 2015 36	1.5	0.5	0.5	3	1	0	1	2	1	2	12.5
Chan 2017 35	1.5	0.5	1.5	3	1	0	1	2	1	2	13.5
Chang 2017 50	1	0.5	0.5	3	1	1	1	2	1	2	13
Cheung 2019 37	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	1	1	2	1	2	14
Dagnone 2016 38	1	1.5	1.5	3	1	1	1	2	1	1.5	14.5
Dayal 2017 18	1	1.5	1.5	3	1	0	1	2	1	2	14
Dehon 2015 19	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	0	1	2	1	2	13
Donato 2015 20	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	1	1	2	1	2	14
Edgerley 2018 39	2	0.5	1.5	3	1	1	1	2	1	1.5	14.5
FitzGerald 2012 21 , *	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	0	0	1	1	1	10
Hall 2015	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	1	1	2	1	1.5	13.5
Hall 2017	1	1.5	1.5	3	1	1	1	2	1	1.5	14.5
Hart 2018 22	1	1.5	1.5	3	1	1	1	2	1	1.5	14.5
Hauff 2014 23	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	1	1	1	1	2	13
Hoonpongsimanont 2018 24	1.5	0.5	1.5	1	1	0	1	2	1	2	11.5
Hurley 2015 42	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	1	1	2	1	1.5	13.5
Jones 2016 48	1.5	0.5	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	8
Jong 2018 25	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	1	1	2	1	1.5	13.5
Kane 2017 26	1.5	0.5	1	3	1	0	0	2	1	1.5	11.5
Lee 2019 49 , *	1	0.5	0.5	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	7
Lefebvre 2018 27	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	0	0	2	1	2	12
Li 2017 43 , *	1	0.5	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1	7.5
Lin 2012 51	1	1.5	1.5	3	1	0	0	1	1	2	12
McConnell 2016 44	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	0	1	2	1	2	13
Min 2016 28	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	0	1	2	1	2	13
Mueller 2017 29 , *	1	0.5	1.5	1	1	0	0	1	1	2	9
Paul 2018 30	2	1	1.5	3	1	1	1	2	1	2	15.5
Schott 2015 31	1	1.5	1.5	3	1	1	1	2	1	1.5	14.5
Sebok‐Syer 2017 45	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	0	1	2	1	2	13
Siegelman 2018 32	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	0	0	2	1	1.5	11.5
Wallenstein 2015 33	1	0.5	1.5	3	1	0	1	2	1	1.5	12.5
Weersink 2019 46	1	0.5	1	3	1	1	1	2	1	2	13.5

^*Qualitative studies where the modified MERSQI tool was used.