Table 3 Summary of quantitative and qualitative quality scores for selected articles
Quantitative studies (N= 6) | Number of articles | % Total studies |
|---|---|---|
1 – Longitudinal/prospective design | 5 | 83.3 |
2 – Pre-post measure of outcome(s) of interest | 2 | 33.3 |
3 – Use of control or comparison group | 1 | 16.7 |
4 – Comparison group selected from similar population with regard to pre-intervention outcomes or socio-demographics | 1 | 16.7 |
5 – Sample size justified | 2 | 33.3 |
6 – Random assignment of individuals to intervention | 0 | 0 |
7 – Outcome of interest measured objectively and systematically | 6 | 100 |
8 – Response or follow-up rate of more than 80% | 3 | 50 |
9 – Use of theoretical framework for guidance | 1 | 16.7 |
10 – Report of an index of variability between groups | 1 | 16.7 |
11 – Report of intervention implementation detail to facilitate replication | 6 | 100 |
  Strong Rating (9 – 11 points) | 0 | 0 |
  Moderate Rating (6 – 8 points) | 2 | 33.3 |
  Weak Rating (≤ 5 points) | 4 | 66.7 |
Qualitative studies (N= 3) | Number of articles | % Total studies |
1 – Prolonged engagement in study setting | 2 | 66.7 |
2 – Justification for design and methods selected | 3 | 100 |
3 – Sampling strategy justified | 1 | 33.3 |
4 – Analytical methods clearly described | 1 | 33.3 |
5 – Use of verification methods to demonstrate credibility | 1 | 33.3 |
6 – Reflexivity of account provided | 0 | 0 |
7 – Detailed report of findings | 3 | 100 |
8 – Balanced and fair representation of view points | 2 | 66.7 |
9 – Conclusions supported and confirmable by the data | 3 | 100 |
10 – Report of intervention implementation detail to facilitate replication | 2 | 66.7 |
  Strong Rating (8 – 10 points) | 0 | 0 |
  Moderate Rating (5 – 7 points) | 3 | 100 |
  Weak Rating (≤ 4 points) | 0 | 0 |