Table 3:
Quality assessment
| Article (Author, Year) | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assessment (1=present; 0=absent) |
Anton et al. 2013 | Barber 2013 | Cadmus-Bertram et al. 2019 |
Conlon et al. 2015
|
Demark-Wahnefried et al. 2014 | James et al. 2015 |
Knobf et al. 2018
|
Manne et al. 2019 |
Pisu et al. 2017
|
Porter et al. 2018
|
Ross Zahavich et al. 2012 | St. George et al. 2019 | Stoutenberg et al. 2016 | Winters-Stone et al. 2016 |
| Research question/objectives/hypothesis are clear and appropriate | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Clear overview of intervention is given with use of appropriate outcome measures | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Sample size is given | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Randomization method is used in sample selection | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Attrition rate from the intervention is recorded | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Data analysis is adequately described and rigorous | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Outcomes of the interventions are clearly described | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Ethical issues mentioned | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Description of intervention setting where contents are delivered | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Strengths AND limitations mentioned or acknowledged | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| The likelihood of biases mentioned | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Conclusions supported by the results | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Quality Score (out of 12) | 4 | 6 | 11 | 11 | 12 | 12 | 9 | 12 | 9 | 12 | 10 | 11 | 10 | 12 |