Skip to main content

Table 3 Quality assessment of quantitative studies

From: A rapid review of mental and physical health effects of working at home: how do we optimise health?

  Inclusion criteria Recruitment Ethics Protocol Blinded assessors Measures Follow up Outcome data Selective reporting Confounders Other Overall Risk
Anderson et al. (2015) [18] N/A ? N/A N/A ? N/A + ? ? High
Bentley (2016) [20] N/A + N/A N/A + ? Mod
Eddleston (2017) [21] N/A N/A N/A Low
Filardi (2020) [22] N/A ? N/A N/A + N/A ? ? + + High
Hayman (2010) [26] ? N/A ? N/A N/A N/A ? + + High
Henke (2016) [8] ? + N/A Low
Hornung (2009) [27] N/A ? + N/A N/A ? Low
Gimenez (2020) [23] N/A + N/A N/A + Low
Golden (2012) [24] N/A ? N/A N/A N/A Low
Kaduk (2019) [28] N/A ? N/A N/A N/A + Low
Kazekami (2020) [29] ? ? ? N/A N/A ? N/A ? Mod
Kim (2019) N/A + N/A N/A + Low
Major (2008) [31] N/A ? N/A + N/A ? + High
Nijp (2016) [32] + + Low
Sardeshmukh (2012) [33] N/A + N/A N/A N/A Low
Song (2019) [34] N/A N/A N/A Low
Suh (2017) [35] N/A + N/A N/A Low
Tustin (2014) [37] ? N/A N/A + Mod
Vander Elst (2017) [38] + N/A N/A N/A ? Low
Windeler (2017) [39] N/A + N/A N/A N/A ? Low
  1. (−) = low risk; (?) = unclear (if the study did not provide adequate details of the criteria in question, the rating was deemed unclear); (+) = high risk; N/A Not applicable