Table 3.

Quality appraisal of qualitative studies (Walsh and Downe criteria) $\left(n=14\right)$.

Criteria	[66]	[76]	[61]	[45]	[47]	[48]	[59]	[68]	[69]	[75]	[62]	[57]	[49]	[60]
Clear statement of, and rationale for, research question/aims/purposes	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	±	±	±
Study thoroughly contextualized by existing literature	+	+	±	+	+	±	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+
Method/design apparent and consistent with research intent	+	±	±	±	+	±	±	–	±	–	±	±	±	±
Data collection strategy apparent and appropriate	±	+	+	±	+	+	±	±	±	±	±	±	±	±
Sample and sampling method appropriate	±	±	±	±	±	±	±	+	±	±	±	–	±	±
Analytic approach appropriate	±	±	±	±	–	±	±	±	±	±	±	±	–	±
Context described and taken account of in interpretation	+	+	±	±	±	±	±	+	+	+	±	±	±	±
Clear audit trail given	±	+	+	±	±	±	±	±	±	±	±	±	±	–
Data used to support interpretation	+	±	+	±	±	+	+	+	±	+	+	+	±	±
Researcher reflexivity demonstrated	–	±	–	±	+	±	–	–	–	–	–	–	±	–
Demonstration of sensitivity to ethical concerns	+	±	±	±	–	±	±	–	±	±	±	±	±	±
Relevance and transferability evident	+	+	+	+	±	±	+	+	+	+	±	+	±	±
Total score	9	9	8	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.5	7.5	7	6.5	6	5.5

Notes: +, criterion met (=1 point), ±, criterion partly met (=0.5 points), –, criterion unmet (=0 points). By adding up the points, a total score of the methodological quality with a maximum of 12 points was determined. Studies are named according to their reference number within this systematic review.