Table 2 Quality ratings using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme CASP tool for qualitative research
Study number | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CASP Criteria | [24] | [53] | [37] | [38] | [54] | [55] | [56] | [57] | [58] | [59] | [60] | [61] | [29] | [62] | [39] | |
1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
3. Was the research design appropriate to the aims of the research? | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | |
4. Was recruitment startegy appropriate to the aims? | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
5. Was data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | |
6. Has the researcher-participant relationship been adequately considered? | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | |
7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
8. Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
9. Is there a clear statement of findings? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
10. How valuable is the research? | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Total Score | 8.5 | 7 | 6.5 | 9.5 | 6.5 | 8.5 | 7 | 8 | 8 | 9.5 | 8 | 8 | 8.5 | 7 | 8.5 | |
Total Score Category | A | B | B | A | B | A | B | B | B | A | B | B | A | B | A | |