Table 1.
Risk of bias assessment of included studies.
| MMAT TOOL | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Qualitative Studies | |||||||||||
| 1. Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question? | 2. Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question? | 3. Are the findings adequately derived from the data? | 4. Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data? | 5. Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection analysis, and interpretation? | |||||||
| Trent et al., 2016 [36] (SWADDLE) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
| Quantitative non-randomized studies | |||||||||||
| 1. Are the participants representative of the target population? | 2. Are measurements appropriate regarding both the outcome and intervention (or exposure)? | 3. Are there complete outcome data? | 4. Are the confounders accounted for in the design and analysis? | 5. During the study period, is the intervention administered (or exposure occurred) as intended? | |||||||
| Wijaya et al., 2018 [38] (no specific name given) |
✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
| Quantitative descriptive studies | |||||||||||
| 1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the research question? | 2. Is the sample representative of the target population? | 3. Are the measurements appropriate? | 4. Is the risk of nonresponse bias low? (for case series and case report: are there complete data on the cases?) | 5. Is the statistical analysis appropriate to answer the research question? | |||||||
| Hirschinger et al., 2015 [27] (forYOU Team) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
| Krzan et al., 2015 [28] (YouMatter Program) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ||||||
| Lane et al., 2018 [29] (WUSM Peer Support Program) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ||||||
| Merandi et al., 2017 [30] (YouMatter Program) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ||||||
| Mira et al., 2017 [31] (MISE) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ||||||
| Mixed methods studies | |||||||||||
| 1. Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question? | 2. Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research questions? | 3. Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted? | 4. Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed? | 5. Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved? | |||||||
| Connors et al., 2021 [23] (RISE) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
| Dukhanin et al., 2018 [24] (RISE) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
| Edrees et al., 2016 [25] (RISE) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
| El Hechi et al., 2019 [26] (Surgery-Specific Second Victim Support Program) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ||||||
| Scott et al., 2010 [35] (forYOU Team) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ||||||
| JBI CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST FOR TEXT AND OPINION PAPERS | |||||||||||
| 1. Source of opinion identified | 2. Source of opinion having a standing in the field | 3. Interests of the relevant population as central focus of the opinion | 4. Stated position as result of analytical process and logic in the expressed opinion | 5. Reference to the extant literature | 6. Incongruence with the literature/sources logically defended | ||||||
| Morales & Brown, 2019 [32] (Care for the Caregiver Program) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
| Pratt et al., 2012 [33] (Medically Induced Trauma Support Services Tool) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
| Roesler et al., 2009 [34] (Healing Beyond Today) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | |||||
| Van Pelt, 2008 [37] (Peer Support Team) |
✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | |||||
✓= Yes; ✗= No; ? = Unclear.