Table 3.
Risk of bias assessed by Quality Assessment Tool
| Study ID (Author, Year) | Adkison, 2014 | Agaku, 2014 | Amato, 2015 | Amrbose, 2015 | Ashare, 2007 | Berg, 2016 | CDC, 1999 | Czoli, 2016 | Delnevo, 2015 | Doxey, 2011 | Etter, 2010 | Farsalinos, 2013 | Farsalinos, 2014 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total score | 19 | 21 | 35 | 31 | 25 | 29 | 13 | 31 | 31 | 25 | 20 | 16 | 19 |
| %a | 45% | 50% | 83% | 74% | 60% | 69% | 31% | 74% | 74% | 60% | 48% | 38% | 45% |
| Explicit theoretical framework | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Statement of aims/objectives in main body of report | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Clear description of research setting | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Evidence of sample size considered in terms of analysis | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Representative sample of target group of a reasonable size | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Description of procedure for data collection | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Rationale for choice of data collection tool(s) | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Detailed recruitment data | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Statistical assessment of reliability and validity of measurement tool(s) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Fit between stated research question and method of data collection | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Fit between research question and method of analysis | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Good justification for analytical method selected | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Evidence of user involvement in design | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Strengths and limitations critically discussed | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Study ID (Author, Year) | Ford, 2016 | Hammond, 2011 | Hammond, 2013 | Kaleta, 2014 | King, 2014 | Kong, 2014 |
Krishnan-Sarin, 2014 |
Leatherdale, 2011 | Lee, 2015 | Manning, 2009 | Minaker, 2016 | Nonnemaker, 2016 |
O'Connor, 2007 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total score | 32 | 26 | 26 | 28 | 32 | 31 | 26 | 29 | 28 | 35 | 33 | 24 | 25 |
| %a | 76% | 62% | 62% | 67% | 76% | 74% | 62% | 69% | 67% | 83% | 79% | 57% | 60% |
| Explicit theoretical framework | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Statement of aims/objectives in main body of report | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Clear description of research setting | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Evidence of sample size considered in terms of analysis | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Representative sample of target group of a reasonable size | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Description of procedure for data collection | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Rationale for choice of data collection tool(s) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Detailed recruitment data | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Statistical assessment of reliability and validity of measurement tool(s) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Fit between stated research question and method of data collection | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Fit between research question and method of analysis | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Good justification for analytical method selected | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| Evidence of user involvement in design | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Strengths and limitations critically discussed | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Study ID (Author, Year) | Oliver, 2013 | Oswal, 2015 | Pepper, 2013 | Pepper, 2014 | Salloum, 2015 | Shiffman, 2015 | Shiplo, 2015 | Smith, 2011 | Tackett, 2015 | Thrasher, 2015 | Vasiljevic, 2016 | White, 2012 | Yates, 2014 | Yingst, 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total score | 20 | 15 | 35 | 34 | 31 | 26 | 27 | 24 | 26 | 32 | 33 | 29 | 19 | 21 |
| %a | 48% | 36% | 83% | 81% | 74% | 62% | 64% | 57% | 62% | 76% | 79% | 69% | 45% | 50% |
| Explicit theoretical framework | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Statement of aims/objectives in main body of report | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Clear description of research setting | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Evidence of sample size considered in terms of analysis | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Representative sample of target group of a reasonable size | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Description of procedure for data collection | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Rationale for choice of data collection tool(s) | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Detailed recruitment data | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Statistical assessment of reliability and validity of measurement tool(s) | 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Fit between stated research question and method of data collection | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Fit between research question and method of analysis | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Good justification for analytical method selected | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Evidence of user involvement in design | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Strengths and limitations critically discussed | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
Note.
a
Percentage = the total score of a study / the full score 42 (14 items × 3 per item)