Skip to main content

Table 2 Methodological quality of included qualitative studies

From: Effectiveness of secondary and tertiary prevention for violence against women in low and low-middle income countries: a systematic review

Key:

0 = low clarity and quality as assessed by the reviewer

1 = reasonable clarity and quality as assessed by the reviewer

2 = reflects a finding of high clarity and quality as assessed by the reviewer

NC = not clear or not available from the paper

Bernath 2013 [24]

Bhate-Deosthali 2012 [44]

Doucet 2012 [43]

GHD Pty Ltd. 2015 [25]

Human Rights Watch 2015 [26]

Keesbury 2012 [27]

Kohli 2013 [46]

Manneschmidt 2009 [42]

Morel-Seytoux 2010 [28]

PHD Group 2012 [29]

Wessel 1997 [45]

1) Worth or relevance

 1.1) Was this piece of work worth doing at all?

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

 1.2) Has it contributed usefully to knowledge?

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2) Clarity of research question

 2.1) If not at the outset of the study, by the end of the research process, was the research question clear?

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

3) Appropriateness of the design of the question

 3.1) Was an appropriate method used?

1

NC

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

4) Context

 4.1) Is the context or setting adequately described so that the reader could relate the findings to other settings?

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

5) Sampling

 5.1) Did the sample include the full range of possible causes or settings?

0

NC

0

NC

NC

1

1

NC

NC

NC

1

 5.2) If appropriate, were efforts made to obtain data that might contradict or modify the analysis extending or modifying the sample?

1

NC

0

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

6) Data collection and analysis

 6.1) Were the data collection and analysis procedures systematic?

1

NC

2

NC

NC

1

2

1

0

0

1

 6.2) Was an ‘audit trail’ provided?

1

0

2

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

 6.3) How well did the analysis succeed in incorporating all the observations?

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

2

2

NC

NC

 6.4) Did the analysis develop concepts and categories capable of explaining key processes?

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

NC

2

 6.5) Was it possible to follow iteration between data and theory?

2

0

2

1

NC

2

2

2

1

0

2

 6.6) Did the researcher search for disconfirming cases?

0

NC

0

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

7) Reflexivity of the account

 7.1) Did the researcher assess the likely impact of the methods used on the data obtained?

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

 7.2) Were sufficient data included in the reports to provide sufficient evidence for readers to assess whether analytical criteria were met?

0

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

0

2

Back to article page

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

Contact us