From: Intersectoral action for health equity: a rapid systematic review
Systematic review (Shea et al. 2007)[21] | Smith[27] | ||||||
Q1. Was an a priori design provided? | Yes | ||||||
The research question and inclusion criteria should be established before the conduct of the review. | |||||||
Q2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? | Yes | ||||||
There should be at least two independent data extractors, and a consensus procedure for disagreements should be in place. | |||||||
Q3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? At least two electronic sources should be searched. The report must include years and databases used (e.g., Central, EMBASE, and MEDLINE). Key words and/or MESH terms must be stated, and where feasible the search strategy should be provided. All searches should be supplemented by consulting current contents, reviews, textbooks, specialized registers, or experts in the particular field of study, and by reviewing the references in the studies found. | Yes | ||||||
Q4. Was the status of publication (i.e., grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion? The authors should state that they searched for reports regardless of their publication type. The authors should state whether or not they excluded any reports (from the systematic review), based on their publication status, language, etc. | Yes | ||||||
Q5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? A list of included and excluded studies should be provided. | Yes | ||||||
Q6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? In an aggregated form such as a table, data from the original studies should be provided on the participants, interventions and outcomes. The ranges of characteristics in all the studies analyzed (e.g. age, race, sex, relevant socioeconomic data, disease status, duration, severity, or other diseases should be reported. | Yes | ||||||
Q7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? ‘A priori’ methods of assessment should be provided (e.g., for effectiveness studies if the author(s) chose to include only randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled studies, or allocation concealment as inclusion criteria); for other types of studies alternative items will be relevant. | Yes | ||||||
Quantitative studies (Thomas et al) [22] | |||||||
Author | Selection bias | Study design | Confounders | Blinding | Data collection methods | Withdrawals/Dropouts | Global rating |
Bruzzese [33] | Weak | Strong | Strong | Moderate | Strong | Moderate | Moderate |
Wills [29] | Strong | Moderate | Moderate | Moderate | Strong | Not applicable | Moderate |
Findley [32] | Strong | Moderate | Strong | Moderate | Weak | Strong | Moderate |
Jackson [31] | Strong | Moderate | Strong | Weak | Strong | Strong | Moderate |
Hollar [30] | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Weak | Strong | Strong | Moderate |
Freeman [28] | Moderate | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong |
Melvin [38] | Moderate | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Moderate | Not applicable | Weak |
Sherring [35] | Moderate | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Strong | Moderate | Weak |
Cheadle [34] | Weak | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Weak | Not applicable | Weak |
Pechter [36] | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Weak | Not applicable | Weak |
Macnab [41] | Weak | Moderate | Strong | Moderate | Strong | Weak | Weak |
Fazel [37] | Moderate | Moderate | Strong | Weak | Strong | Weak | Weak |
Bailie [40] | Strong | Moderate | Strong | Weak | Weak | Moderate | Weak |
Peifer [39] | Weak | Moderate | Weak | Weak | Weak | Not applicable | Weak |
Qualitative studies (Letts et al. 2007)[26] | Collie-Akers[42] | Metzel[43] | |||||
Study purpose: Was the purpose and/or research question stated clearly? | Yes | Yes | |||||
Literature: Was relevant background literature reviewed? | Yes | Yes | |||||
Study design | What was the design? | Case study | Qualitative description | ||||
Was a theoretical perspective identified? | Yes | Yes | |||||
Method(s) used | Document review and interviews | Interviews | |||||
Sampling | Was the process of purposeful selection described? | No | Yes | ||||
Was sampling done until redundancy? | Not addressed | Not addressed | |||||
Was informed consent obtained? | Not addressed | Yes | |||||
Data Collection | |||||||
Descriptive clarity | Clear and complete description of site | Yes | Yes | ||||
Clear and complete description of participants | Yes | Yes | |||||
Role of researcher and relationship with participants | Yes | No | |||||
Identification of assumptions and biases of researcher | No | No | |||||
Procedure rigour | Procedural rigour was used in data collection strategies | Yes | Yes | ||||
Data Analyses | |||||||
Analytical rigour | Data analyses were inductive | Yes | Yes | ||||
Findings were consistent with and reflective of data | Yes | Yes | |||||
Auditability | Decision trial developed | Yes | Yes | ||||
Process of analyzing the data was described adequately | No | Yes | |||||
Theoretical Connections | Did a meaningful picture of the phenomenon under study emerge? | Yes | Yes | ||||
Overall rigour | |||||||
Was there evidence of the four components of trustworthiness? | Credibility | Yes | Yes | ||||
Transferability | Yes | Yes | |||||
Dependability | Yes | Yes | |||||
Confirmability | No | Yes | |||||
Conclusions and Implications | |||||||
Conclusions were appropriate given the study findings | Yes | Yes | |||||
The findings contributed to theory development and future practice/research | Yes | Yes |