TABLE 2.
Quality assessment of papers (QATSDD)
| Author (ref) | Study design | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | Total | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bainter 18 | Qualitative | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | NA | NA | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 8/42 | 19% |
| Brown 20 | Quantitative | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 | NA | 2 | 0 | NA | 0 | 3 | 20/42 | 48% |
| Cavicchiolo 22 | Quantitative | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | NA | 2 | 0 | NA | 0 | 2 | 26/42 | 62% |
| Darcy Mahoney 17 | Quantitative | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | NA | 2 | 2 | NA | 0 | 2 | 20/42 | 48% |
| Fan 21 | Qualitative | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | NA | NA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 15/42 | 36% |
| Muniraman 19 | Mixed | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 20/48 | 42% |
|
Semaan 16 |
Mixed | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 27/48 | 56% |
Abbreviations: NA, not applicable; QATSDD, Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Design.
Scores range from 0–3.
Item 1: Explicit theoretical framework
Item 2: Statement of aims/objectives in main report
Item 3: Clear description of research setting
Item 4: Evidence of sample size considered in terms of analysis
Item 5: Representative sample of target group of a reasonable size
Item 6: Description of procedure for data collection
Item 7: Rationale for choice of data collection tool(s)
Item 8: Detailed recruitment data
Item 9: Statistical assessment of reliability and validity of measurement tool(s) (Quantitative studies only)
Item 10: Fit between research question and method of data collection (Quantitative studies only)
Item 11: Fit between research question and format and content of data collection tool, for example interview schedule (Qualitative studies only)
Item 12: Fit between research question and method of analysis (Quantitative studies only)
Item 13: Good justification for analytic method selected
Item 14: Assessment of reliability of analytic process (Qualitative studies only)
Item 15: Evidence of user involvement in design
Item 16: Strengths and limitations critically discussed
This article is being made freely available through PubMed Central as part of the COVID-19 public health emergency response. It can be used for unrestricted research re-use and analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source, for the duration of the public health emergency.