Table 1.
Critical appraisal of included qualitative studies (n = 7).
| Author (date) | Study purpose | Rationale for approach | Conceptual framework | Ethical implications | Sampling strategy | Data collection | Data organisation | Data analysis | Reliability & validity | Conclusions | Total Score* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canaway et al. (2018)32 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.70 |
| Goldenberg et al. (2017)33 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.90 |
| Lawrence et al. (2008)36 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.70 |
| Leach et al. (2018)39 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.70 |
| Spence and Li (2013)46 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.80 |
| Wong et al. (2021)55 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.80 |
| Woo and Cho (2012)56 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.70 |
⁎
Scoring: Studies were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research Studies. Each item was scored as either 1 (criterion met) or 0 (criterion not met or unclear). Total score represents the mean of all items.