Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies

From: Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions

Qualitative studies

 

Study identification

Criteria

[60]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[29]

[41]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[51]

[54, 55]

[58]

[59]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[56]

[50]

Question/objective sufficiently described?

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

0

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

Study design evident and appropriate?

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

Context for the study clear?

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Connection to a theoretical framework/wider body of knowledge?

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

0

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

Sampling strategy described, relevant and justified?

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

0

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

Data collection methods clearly described and systematic?

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

Data analysis clearly described and systematic?

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

0

2

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

0

2

Use of verification procedure(s) to establish credibility?

0

2

2

0

1

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Conclusions supported by the results?

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

0

2

Reflexivity accounted for?

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total score/possible maximum score

15/20

17/20

17/20

15/20

16/20

15/20

16/20

3/20

16/20

14/20

14/20

14/20

12/20

13/20

12/20

16/20

9/20

16/20

Quantitative studies

 

Study identification

Criteria

[53]

[33]

[34]

[40]

[11]

[46]

Question/objective sufficiently described?

2

2

2

2

2

2

Study design evident and appropriate?

2

2

2

2

2

2

Method of subject/comparison group selection or source of information/input variables described and appropriate?

1

2

2

1

2

2

Subject (and comparison group, if applicable) characteristics sufficiently described?

2

2

2

2

2

2

If interventional and random allocation was possible, was it described?

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

If interventional and blinding of investigators was possible, was it reported?

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

If interventional and blinding of subjects was possible, was it reported?

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Outcome and (if applicable) exposure measure(s) well-defined and robust for measurement/misclassification bias? Means of assessment reported?

2

2

2

2

2

2

Sample size appropriate?

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Analytic methods described/justified and appropriate?

2

2

2

2

2

2

Some estimate of variance is reported for the main results?

N/A

2

0

2

2

1

Controlled for confounding?

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Results reported in sufficient detail?

2

2

2

2

2

2

Conclusions supported by the results?

2

2

2

2

2

2

Total score/possible maximum score

15/16

18/18

16/18

17/18

18/18

17/18

Mixed methods studies

 

Study identification

 

[21, 35, 36]

[42]

[57]

[52]

Assessment of the qualitative component of the study

Criteria

                  

Question/objective sufficiently described?

2

2

2

2

Study design evident and appropriate?

2

2

2

2

Context for the study clear?

2

2

2

2

Connection to a theoretical framework/wider body of knowledge?

2

2

2

2

Sampling strategy described, relevant and justified?

1

1

1

1

Data collection methods clearly described and systematic?

2

2

2

2

Data analysis clearly described and systematic?

2

2

2

2

Use of verification procedure(s) to establish credibility?

0

2

0

0

Conclusions supported by the results?

2

2

2

2

Reflexivity of the account?

0

2

0

0

Assessment of the quantitative component of the study

Question/objective sufficiently described?

2

2

2

2

Study design evident and appropriate?

2

2

2

2

Method of subject/comparison group selection or source of information/input variables described and appropriate?

1

2

1

2

Subject (and comparison group, if applicable) characteristics sufficiently described?

2

2

2

2

If interventional and random allocation was possible, was it described?

2

N/A

N/A

N/A

If interventional and blinding of investigators was possible, was it reported?

2

N/A

N/A

N/A

If interventional and blinding of subjects was possible, was it reported?

2

N/A

N/A

N/A

Outcome and (if applicable) exposure measure(s) well-defined and robust for measurement/misclassification bias? Means of assessment reported?

2

2

2

2

Sample size appropriate?

2

N/A

2

N/A

Analytic methods described/justified and appropriate?

2

2

1

N/A

Some estimate of variance is reported for the main results?

2

2

1

N/A

Controlled for confounding?

1

N/A

1

N/A

Results reported in sufficient detail?

2

2

2

2

Conclusions supported by the results?

2

2

2

2

Total score/possible maximum score

41/48

37/38

33/42

29/34

  1. 2: Yes
  2. 1: Partial
  3. 0: No
  4. N/A: Not applicable
Back to article page

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908