TABLE 2.
Criteria from the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
| Included studies | 1.1 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 4.1 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.5 | 5.1 | 5.2 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 5.5. | Total quality score |
| Bouldin et al. (2019) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3/5 | ||||||||||
| Heid et al. (2016) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3/5 | ||||||||||
| Hollis-Sawyer (2001) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4/5 | ||||||||||
| Kim et al. (2008) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4/5 | ||||||||||
| Martini et al. (2001) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1/5 | ||||||||||
| Romano et al. (2020) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4/5 | ||||||||||
| Shawler et al. (2018) | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3/5 | ||||||||||
| Gilligan et al. (2017) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3/5 | ||||||||||
| Jones and Morris (2013) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5/5 | ||||||||||
| Katapodi et al. (2018) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4/5 | ||||||||||
| Knussen et al. (2005) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2/5 | ||||||||||
| Rand et al. (2017) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5/5 | ||||||||||
| Raveis et al. (2000) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4/5 | ||||||||||
| Wu et al. (2021) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3/5 |
0 = No; Cannot tell; 1 = Yes; Qualitative studies: 1.1. Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question? 1.2. Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question? 1.3. Are the findings adequately derived from the data? 1.4. Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data? 1.5. Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis, and interpretation? Quantitative descriptive studies: 4.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the research question? 4.2. Is the sample representative of the target population? 4.3. Are the measurements appropriate? 4.4. Is the risk of non-response bias low? 4.5. Is the statistical analysis appropriate to answer the research question? Mixed methods studies: 5.1. Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question? 5.2. Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question? 5.3. Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted? 5.4. Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed? 5.5. Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved?