Table 4.
Quality appraisal of mixed methods studies (EPHPP, Walsh and Downe criteria, and Creswell and Plano Clark criteria) .
| Assessment Tools | Criteria | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPHPP | Selection Bias | Study Design | Confounders | Blinding | Data Collection Methods | Withdrawals and Drop-Outs | Final Rating | |||||||
| [51] | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||||
| [77] | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | |||||||
| [70] | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||
| [72] | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||
| [50] | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||||||
| [79] | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | |||||||
| [58] | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||
| [53] | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | |||||||
| [54] | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||
| [64] | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | |||||||
|
Qualitative
criteria |
Study purpose | Study scope | Study Design | Data collection | Sampling strategy | Analysis | Study context | Audit trail | Data to support interpretation | Reflexivity | Ethical dimensions | Transferability | Final rating | |
| [51] | + | ± | ± | + | ± | ± | + | + | ± | ± | + | + | 9 | |
| [77] | + | ± | ± | + | ± | ± | ± | ± | + | – | ± | ± | 7 | |
| [70] | ± | ± | – | ± | ± | ± | + | ± | + | – | ± | + | 6.5 | |
| [72] | + | + | ± | ± | ± | ± | ± | ± | – | – | ± | ± | 6 | |
| [50] | + | ± | – | ± | ± | ± | – | ± | ± | ± | ± | ± | 5.5 | |
| [79] | + | + | ± | ± | ± | – | ± | ± | ± | – | – | ± | 5.5 | |
| [58] | + | ± | – | ± | ± | ± | ± | – | ± | – | ± | ± | 5 | |
| [53] | + | + | ± | ± | – | – | – | – | ± | – | ± | ± | 4.5 | |
| [54] | + | + | – | ± | ± | – | ± | – | – | – | ± | ± | 4.5 | |
| [64] | + | ± | – | ± | ± | – | ± | – | ± | – | – | ± | 4 | |
| Mixed methods criteria | Frames the procedures within theory and philosophy | Organizes the procedures into specific research designs | Collects and analyses both qualitative and quantitative data rigorously | Intentionally integrates the two data strands | Final rating | |||||||||
| [51] | – | ± | ± | – | 1 | |||||||||
| [77] | – | ± | + | – | 1.5 | |||||||||
| [70] | – | ± | ± | – | 1 | |||||||||
| [72] | – | ± | ± | – | 1 | |||||||||
| [50] | – | ± | ± | ± | 1.5 | |||||||||
| [79] | – | – | ± | ± | 1 | |||||||||
| [58] | – | ± | ± | – | 1 | |||||||||
| [53] | – | ± | ± | ± | 1.5 | |||||||||
| [54] | – | ± | ± | – | 1 | |||||||||
| [64] | – | ± | ± | – | 1 | |||||||||
Notes: EPHPP: 1 = strong, 2 = moderate, 3 = weak; Qualitative criteria: +, criterion met (=1point); ±, 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; Mixed methods criteria: +, criterion met (=1point); ±, 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 4 points was determined. Studies are named according to their reference number within this systematic review.