Table 5 Quality checklist criteria
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 |