Table 3.
Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) scores for included studies.
| Study | MMAT |
|---|---|
| Quantitative studies | |
| Minematsu (2006) | * |
| Jablonsk et al. (2005) | ** |
| Dobbs et al. (2005) a | *** |
| Grabowski & Mitchell (2009) | *** |
| Reinhardt et al. (2014) | *** |
| Arai et al. (2021) | **** |
| Chappell et al. (2014) | **** |
| Livingston et al. (2017) | **** |
| Mbakile-Mahlanza et al. (2020) | **** |
| Toles et al. (2018) | **** |
| Van der Steen et al. (2012) | **** |
| Verreault et al. (2018) | **** |
| Zimmerman et al. (2005) a | **** |
| Qualitative studies | |
| Brannelly et al. (2019) | *** |
| Stirling et al. (2014) | *** |
| Walmsley & McCormack (2017) | *** |
| Aveyard & Davies (2006) | **** |
| Mariani et al. (2017) b | **** |
| Mixed methods studies | |
| Robison et al. (2007) | *** |
| Bramble et al. (2011) c | **** |
| Brazil et al. (2018) d | **** |
| Mariani et al. (2018) b | **** |
Note: Scores vary from *(25%) one criterion met, to **** (100%) all criteria met.
aRelated studies (Dementia Care Project, USA).
bRelated studies (Shared Decision-Making framework, Italy and Netherlands).
cMixed method RCT; 2009 paper reports qualitative results.
dMixed method RCT; 2018 reports qualitative results (UK)—related specific domain.