Table 4.
Risk of Bias - Qualitative Studies
| A. Validity of Results | B. Results | C. Value | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||
| Authors, year | 1. Clear statement of aims | 2. Qual. method apt | 3. Research design apt | 4. Recruit strategy apt | 5. Data apt for aims | 6. Consider researcher/participant relationship | 7. Consider ethics | 8. Analysis sufficiently rigorous | 9. Findings clear | 10. Describe value |
|
| ||||||||||
| Kingston, 2008 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | Somewhat, but not fully explored in paper |
| Lutter, 2008 Lutter, & Smith-Osborne, 2011 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Yes, one of the first studies looking at AAT with EDs |
| Sharpe, 2013 | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Yes, although broader applicability may be limited by the heavily personal nature of the paper |
| Traen, 2012 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | Y | Yes, explored provider perspectives on the beneficial properties of equine therapy for EDs |
Note: Y = yes, N = no, U = unclear, qual = qualitative. The CASP checklist consists of the following 1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? 2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? 3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? 4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? 5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? 6. Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered? 7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? 8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? 9. Is there a clear statement of findings? 10. How valuable is the research?