Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment results

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