Table 2 Assessing the quality of the papers
Assessing the quality of the studies through using CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) tool (yes = 1, no = 0) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author(s) & Year of publication | 1. Clear statement of research aims | 2. Appropriate methodology | 3. Appropriate research design | 4. Appropriate recruitment strategy | 5. Justification of the way of data collection | 6. Relationship between researcher & participants has been adequately considered | 7. Consideration of ethical issues | 8. Rigorous data analysis | 9. Clear statement of findings | 10. Value of research | Scores attained (Out of 10) | Ratings (1–4 = weak, 5–8 = moderate, 9–10 = strong) |
Mathew et al. [12] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | Strong |
Akotia et al. [36] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | Strong |
Acheampong & Aziato [22] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | Strong |
Akotia et al. [13] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | Strong |
Asare-Doku et al. [17] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | Strong |
Osafo et al. [33] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 8 | Moderate |
Shamsaei et al. [14] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | Strong |
Azizpour et al. [23] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | Strong |
Rezaie et al. [21] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | Strong |
Sukhawaha et al. [15] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | Strong |
Wang et al. [37] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | Strong |
Amin et al. [16] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | Moderate |
Medina et al. [38] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 9 | Strong |