Table 1.

Critical appraisals using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)

Studies	Methodological quality criteria					Overall responses from the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool	Quality
Qualitative	1	2	3	4	5
Baker, 2015	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	QUAL = 5	100%
Balneaves, 2020	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	QUAL = 5	100%
Brandenbarg, 2017	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	QUAL = 5	100%
Cheville, 2012	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	QUAL = 5	100%
Coa, 2014	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	QUAL = 5	100%
Haussman, 2018a	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	QUAL = 5	100%
Koutoukidis, 2018	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	QUAL = 5	100%
Roberts, 2019	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	QUAL = 5	100%
Waterland, 2020	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	QUAL = 5	100%
Quantitative descriptive	1	2	3	4	5
Alderman, 2020	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	QUAN = 4	80%
Chan, 2018	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	QUAN = 4	80%
Haussman, 2018b	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	QUAN = 4	80%
Keogh, 2017	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	QUAN = 4	80%
Kiss, 2020	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	QUAN = 4	80%
Ligibel, 2019	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	QUAN = 4	80%
Puhringer, 2015	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	QUAN = 4	80%
Spellmann, 2014	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	QUAN = 4	80%
Wallace, 2015	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	QUAN = 4	80%
Williams, 2013	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	QUAN = 4	80%
Mixed-methods
Anderson, 2013	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	MM = 4	80%
Kassianos, 2017	✓	✓	✓	x	✓	MM = 4	80%