Table 2.

Results of critical appraisal checklist results.

Questions of quality, author(s), year, country

	Celik et al., 2012, NLD	Perry et al., 2015, AUS	Ahn, 2017, ROK	Kaihlanen et al., 2019, FIN	Slobodin et al., 2021, ISR	McDonald et al., 2021, SWE
1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research?	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
2. Is the qualitative methodology appropriate?	Y	N1/CT2	N	Y	Y1/CT2	Y
3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?	Y	CT1/Y2	Y	Y	Y	Y
4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?	Y	Y	Y	Y1/N2	Y	Y
6. Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration?	Y	Y	Y	Y	N1/Y2	Y
8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?	Y	N	Y	Y1/N2	Y	Y
9. Is there a clear statement of findings?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
10. How valuable is the research?	Y	Y	Y	N1/CT2	Y	Y
Final quality level/grade

Y, Yes; N, No; CT, Cannot tell; ROK, Republic of South Korea; ISR, Israel; SWE, Sweden; AUS, Australia; NDL, Netherlands (the); FIN, Finland.

¹Co-authors answers-by IK.

²Co-authors answers-by VH.