Table 2 Quality appraisal of included papers and their Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) score
Qualitative | Quantitative | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author, year | Sources relevant to address research question | Analysis Process relevant to address research question | Findings adequately derived from data | Interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data | Sampling strategy reduce selection bias | Measuring appropriate for intervention /outcome | Sample representativeness | Acceptable response rate | Total points | Score | Quality |
Vahidi et al. (2016) [3] | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | (2/4) | 50 | Moderate | ||||
Gabriel, Aluko, and Okeme (2019) [15] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
Zhu et al. (2014) [31] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
Sahadevan et al. (2019) [26] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
Jaafar et al. (2014) [24] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
Gabriel and Mayers. (2019) [27] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate -strong | ||||
Giray and Akyuz (2019) [28] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
Moreno-Gonzalez et al. (2019) [29] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
Hashemi-Ghasemabadi et al. (2016) [6] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (4/4) | 100 | Strong | ||||
Mahadevan et al. (2013) [32] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
Bahrami and Farzi (2014) [18] | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
Wulandari et al. (2017) | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | (2/4) | 50 | Moderate | ||||
Yeung et al. (2018) [30] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
Heidari Gorji et al. (2012) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
Yuanyuan An et al. (2019) | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
Nejad et al. (2016) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
Din et al. (2017) [25] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
Khanjari et al. (2014) [35] | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (3/4) | 75 | Moderate-strong | ||||
Kusi et al. (2020) [4] | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | (4/4) | 100 | Strong | ||||
k; 0.9 (0.6–1.2) p < 0.05 | k; 0.8 (0.5–1.1) p < 0.001 | k; 1.0 (0.9–1.0) p = 0.001 | k; 0.9 (0.7–1.1) p < 0.05 | k; 0.79 (0.4–1.2) p < 0.001 | k; 1.0 (0.9–1.0) p < 0.001 | k; 1.0 (0.9–1.0) p < 0.001 | k; 0.8 (0.4–1.2) p = 0.001 | ||||