Surname/year of first author of main paper	Critical screening criterion				1: Research design is defensible	2. Research features an appropriate sample	3: Research is rigorous in conduct	4: Research findings are credible in claim/based on data	5: Research attends to contexts	6: Research is reflexive	Final critical appraisal
	Primary data and applied methods	Research question & objective	Fit between design & question	Findings based on data
Hedge (2015)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Rigorous	Credible	n/a	n/a	High quality
Mudaca (2011)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Functional	Critical	Credible	n/a	n/a	Moderate quality
Spiric (2009)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Arguable	Appropriate	Rigorous	Arguable	Considered	Acknowledged	Moderate quality
Barbir (2009)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Critical	Appropriate	Critical	Credible	Considered	No reflection	Low quality
W0lrd Bank (2008)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Rigorous	Credible	n/a	n/a	High quality
Honey‐Roses (2009)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Rigorous	Credible	n/a	n/a	High quality
Missrie (2005)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Arguable	Critical	Flawed	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Clements (2013)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Arguable	Critical	Critical	Credible	No attention	No reflection	Low quality
Ko (2012)	N	Y	N	Y	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Chandara (2011)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Critical	Critical	Credible	n/a	n/a	Low quality
Shresta (2014)	Y	Y	N	N	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Uprey (2011)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Critical	Doubtful	Mentioned	No reflection	Low quality
Sharma (2017)	Y	Y	N	Y	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Bossel (2013)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Functional	Considerate	Credible	n/a	n/a	Moderate quality
Le Coq (2013)	N	Y	N	Y	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Le Coq (2015)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Rigorous	Credible	Considered	Acknowledged	High quality
Bosma (2012)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Critical	Critical	Doubtful	Mentioned	Considered	Low quality
Murillo (2014)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Critical	Critical	Credible	n/a	n/a	Low quality
Porras (2010)	N	Y	N	N	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Blackman (2010)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Arguable	Appropriate	Rigorous	Arguable	n/a	n/a	Moderate quality
Legrand (2013)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Critical	Appropriate	Considerate	Doubtful	n/a	n/a	Low quality
Zbinden (2005)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Critical	Credible	n/a	n/a	Moderate quality
Ezzine‐de‐Blas (2012)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Functional	Considerate	Credible	n/a	n/a	Moderate quality
Sims (2014)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Functional	Considerate	Credible	n/a	n/a	Moderate quality
Munoz‐Pinaet (2007)	N	N	N	N	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Alix‐Garcia (2009)	Y	Y	N	N	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Tu (2012)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Critical	Critical	Credible	n/a	n/a	Low quality
Xu (2006)	N	Y	N	N	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Yin (2013)	N	Y	N	N	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Li (2016)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Critical	Credible	n/a	n/a	Moderate quality
Bennett (2008)	Y	Y	N	N	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Yin (2018)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Rigorous	Credible	n/a	n/a	High quality
Cao (2009)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Arguable	Appropriate	Rigorous	Arguable	n/a	n/a	Moderate quality
Zhang (2008)	N	Y	N	N	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Woodhouse (2015)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Considerate	Doubtful	Considered	Acknowledged	Low quality
Feng (2015)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Critical	Credible	n/a	n/a	Moderate quality
Branca (2011)	N	Y	N	N	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Kwayu (2017)	N	Y	Y	N	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Lopa (2012)	N	Y	Y	N	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Bremer (2013)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Arguable	Functional	Flawed	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Murtinho (2017)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Critical	Doubtful	Considered	Acknowledged	Low quality
Hayes (2015)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Rigorous	Credible	n/a	n/a	High quality
Krause (2013a)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Critical	Doubtful	Considered	Acknowledged	Low quality
Kraus (2013b)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Rigorous	Credible	Considered	Acknowledged	High quality
Collen (2016)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Rigorous	Credible	Considered	Acknowledged	High quality
Jayachandran (2014)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Rigorous	Credible	n/a	n/a	High quality
Calle (2009)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Critical	Critical	Credible	Considered	No reflection	Low quality
Hayes (2012)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Considerate	Arguable	Not attention	No reflection	Moderate quality
Pagiola (2005)	N	Y	Y	Y	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Pagiola (2010)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Rigorous	Credible	n/a	n/a	High quality
Milne (2012)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Critical	Critical	Flawed	Not credible	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Yuan (2017)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Functional	Considerate	Credible	n/a	n/a	Moderate quality
Ajayi (2012)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Critical	Appropriate	Critical	Arguable	Considered	Acknowledged	Low quality
Lopez (2017)	N	Y	Y	N	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	n/a	Critical quality
Chen (2016	Y	Y	Y	Y	Arguable	Appropriate	Rigorous	Credible	n/a	n/a	High quality
Costeodat (2016)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Defensible	Appropriate	Rigorous	Credible	n/a	n/a	High quality