Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 5 Quality checklist criteria

From: Hospital-based interventions: a systematic review of staff-reported barriers and facilitators to implementation processes

Quality checklist criteria Included studies that met this criteria (rating yes)
Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) (N = 37)
 1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? 35/37
 2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? 37/37
 3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? 33/37
 4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? 30/37
 5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? 32/37
 6. Has the relationship between researcher and participants been adequately considered? 2/37
 7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? 34/37
 8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? 31/37
 9. Is there a clear statement of findings? 34/37
 10. How valuable is the research? (no rating) Rating not indicated for this item
Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) (N = 3)
 Are there clear qualitative and quantitative research questions (or objectives), or a clear mixed methods question (or objective)? 3/3
 Do the collected data allow address the research question (objective)? E.g., consider whether the follow-up period is long enough for the outcome to occur (for longitudinal studies or study components). 2/3
  1.1. Are the sources of qualitative data (archives, documents, informants, observations) relevant to address the research question (objective)? 2/3
  1.2. Is the process for analyzing qualitative data relevant to address the research question (objective)? 1/3
  1.3. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to the context, e.g., the setting, in which the data were collected? 2/3
  1.4. Is appropriate consideration given to how findings relate to researchers’ influence, e.g., through their interactions with participants? 0/3
  4.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the quantitative research question (quantitative aspect of the mixed methods question)? 1/3
  4.2. Is the sample representative of the population understudy? 1/3
  4.3. Are measurements appropriate (clear origin, or validity known, or standard instrument)? 1/3
  4.4. Is there an acceptable response rate (60% or above)? 1/3
  5.1. Is the mixed methods research design relevant to address the qualitative and quantitative research questions (or objectives), or the qualitative and quantitative aspects of the mixed methods question (or objective)? 3/3
  5.2. Is the integration of qualitative and quantitative data (or results) relevant to address the research question (objective)? 2/3
  5.3. Is appropriate consideration given to the limitations associated with this integration, e.g., the divergence of qualitative and quantitative data (or results) in a triangulation design? 1/3
Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT; Quantitative descriptive) (N = 3)
 Are there clear qualitative and quantitative research questions (or objectives), or a clear mixed methods question (or objective)? 3/3
 Do the collected data allow address the research question (objective)? E.g., consider whether the follow-up period is long enough for the outcome to occur (for longitudinal studies or study components). 3/3
  4.1. Is the sampling strategy relevant to address the quantitative research question (quantitative aspect of the mixed methods question)? 3/3
  4.2. Is the sample representative of the population understudy? 2/3
  4.3. Are measurements appropriate (clear origin, or validity known, or standard instrument)? 2/3
  4.4. Is there an acceptable response rate (60% or above)? 2/3