Table 2.
Authors | CASP Checklist | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Q1a | Q2b | Q3c | Q4d | Q5e | Q6f | Q7g | Q8h | Q9i | Q10j | Q11k | Total | |
Wong et al. (2019) [28] | SW | Y | SW | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | SW | Y | Y | 17 |
Sherman et al. (2014) [29] | Y | Y | Y | Y | SW | Y | N | SW | SW | Y | Y | 17 |
Gooden et al. (2013) [30] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | SW | Y | SW | 18 |
Petrin et al. (2009) [31] | Y | Y | Y | Y | SW | Y | N | Y | SW | Y | Y | 18 |
Saunder et al. (2009) [27] | Y | Y | Y | SW | SW | Y | N | Y | SW | Y | Y | 17 |
CASP Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, CT cannot tell, N no, SW somewhat, Y yes
aWas there a clear statement of the aims of the research?
bIs qualitative methodology appropriate?
cWas the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research?
dAre the theoretical underpinnings, clear, consistent, and conceptually coherent?
eWas the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research issue?
fWas the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue?
gHas the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered?
hHave ethical issues been taken into consideration?
iWas the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?
jIs there a clear statement of findings?
kHow valuable is the research?