Table 2

Quality appraisal of primary studies

Qualitative studiesItem number checklist
123456789101112131415
Gray et al 35 122222022111011
Buki et al 40 212100122222111
Ankersmid et al 2 222212022111002
Gisiger-Camata et al 25 222111022111102
Pembroke et al 26 210212221222102
Dsouza et al 11 212211022111011
Wilson et al 31 22222022111102
Galván et al 39 222112022222111
Cappiello et al 36 222212111210001
Black et al 51 222212122222221
Tanjasiri et al 44 222211022222112
Adams et al 43 222111002222112
Hubbeling et al 13 222222222222112
Kim et al 29 222212022222112
Lee et al 3 212211011211101
Thewes et al 9 212212122222112
Kwok and White53 222122022222112
Wells et al 122222122222212
Shaw and Coggin38 221222122222112
Ridner et al 55 222122222222212

  • Item number checklist key: (1) research question clearly described, (2) qualitative method appropriate, (3) setting/context clearly described, (4) sampling strategy clearly described, (5) sampling method likely to recruit all relevant cases, (6) characteristics of the sample provided, (7) rationale of sample size given, (8) methods of data collection clearly described, (9) method of data collection appropriate for research question and paradigm, (10) researcher has verified data (eg, by triangulation), (11) data analysis methods clearly described, (12) data analysis methods appropriate, (13) competing accounts/deviant data taken into account, (14) extent to which the researcher is reflective, (15) interpretations and conclusions supported by the data. Three levels of quality assessment of scores: ▢ low risk of bias (2), ▢ unclear risk of bias (1), ▢ high risk of bias (0).