Table 1.

Quality Assessment of Included Studies Using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme—Qualitative Checklist—Section A—Validity

Papers	Quality control						Total score
	1	2	3	4a	5a	6a
Adamson (2001)	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	0	4
Adamson & Donovan (2005)	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	0	4
Lawrence et al. (2008)	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	0	4
Lawrence et al. (2011)	1	1	1	1	0.5	0	4.5
Mukadam et al. (2011)	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	0	4
Berwald et al. (2016)	1	1	1	1	1	0	5
Cheston et al. (2017)	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	0	4
Sterritt & Pokorny (1998)	1	1	1	0	0.5	0	3.5
Fox et al. (1999)	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	0	4
Lampley-Dallas et al. (2001)	1	1	1	0.5	1	0.5	5
Cloutterbuck & Mahoney (2003)	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	0	4
Belgrave et al. (2004)	1	1	1	1	1	1	6
Toth-Cohen (2004)	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	0	4
Jett (2006)	1	1	1	0.5	0	0	3.5
Gerdner et al. (2007)	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	0.5	4.5
Vickrey et al. (2007)	1	1	1	0.5	1	0.5	5
Gerdner & Simpson (2009)	1	1	1	1	1	1	6
Hughes et al. (2009)	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	0	4
Stansbury, Harley, et al. (2010)	1	1	1	1	0.5	0	4.5
Stansbury, Marshall, et al. (2010)	1	1	1	1	0.5	0	4.5
Sullivan & Beard (2014)	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	0	4
Roberts et al. (2015)	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	0	4
Lindauer et al. (2016)	1	1	1	1	1	1	6
Potter et al. (2017)	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	0	4
Moss et al. (2018)	1	1	1	1	1	1	6
Epps et al. (2019)	1	1	1	0.5	0.5	0	4
van Wezel et al. (2016)	1	1	1	1	1	0.5	5.5
van Wezel et al. (2018)	1	1	1	1	1	0.5	5.5

Note: ^aPartial point was given if studies did not match recruiter–participant ethnicity, for example, by making use of Black informant/recruiter/interviewer in addition to standard methodology or failed to address the potential influence on findings of the ethnic discordance between researcher and participant.