Table 2.
Quality assessment of the included studies of dyadic experiences of the patient and his/her life partner when confronted with advanced cancer.
| References | Type of studies | Research question | Particip-ants | Sources and methods | Tools | Ethics | Analyses | Study plan strength | Quality of study | Directness of evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Opsomer et al. (2019) | Descriptive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low | Moderate | Direct |
| Gardner (2008) | Descriptive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low | Moderate | Direct |
| Weißflog et al. (2017) | Descriptive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low | High | Direct |
| Mah et al. (2020) | Descriptive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low | Moderate | Direct |
| Braun et al. (2012) | Descriptive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low | High | Direct |
| Drabe et al. (2016) | Descriptive |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Low | Moderate | Direct |
| References | Type of studies | Participants (case report) | Quality (case report) | Conclusion | ||||||
| Reny (2020a) | Descriptive (case report) |
|
|
This case study suggests lines of thought relating to the phenomenon under study. It is necessary to carry out more robust studies in order to have a sufficient level of proof to validate the hypotheses put forward. | ||||||
| References | Type of studies | Research question | Included Studies and Critical Appraisal | Conclusion | ||||||
| Iwasaki et al. (2018) | Review |
|
|
This review suggests lines of thought relating to the phenomenon under study. It is necessary to carry out more robust studies in order to have a sufficient level of proof to validate the hypotheses put forward. | ||||||
| Cort et al. (2004) | Review |
|
|
|||||||
| McLean and Jones (2007) | Review |
|
|
|||||||
: strong/high
: moderate/medium
: weak/low