Table 3

Quality assessment of studies

StudyClear statement of the aims of the researchQualitative methodology appropriateResearch design appropriate to address the aims of the researchRecruitment strategy appropriateData collected to address the research issueRelationship between researcher and participants adequately consideredHave ethical issues been taken into consideration?Data analysis sufficiently rigorousClear statement of findingsIs the research valuable?
Kayiga et al, 201616 YYYCan’t tell *YCan’t tell *YYYY
Gomez Luz et al, 201417 18 YYYYYYYYYY
Hamersveld et al, 201219 YYYCan’t tell *YCan’t tell *Partly †YYY
Bakker et al, 201120 YYYPartly ‡YYYYYY
Hutchinson et al, 201021 YYYYYYYYYY
Muffler et al, 200722 YYYYYYPartly §YYY
Richard 2008 et al, 23 YYYYYYYYYY
Filippi et al, 200424§YYYYYCan’t tell *Can’t tell *YYY
  • *Not enough information provided in the paper.

  • †Participants’ informed verbal consent was obtained for each interview and for the use of a tape recording. Participants’ anonymity was protected by keeping the tape records and written information confidential.

  • ‡Participants were conveniently selected.

  • §The National Health Sciences Research Committee of the Government of Malawi qualified the study as ‘operational research’ and did not require formal ethical approval, because it involved the evaluation of routine clinical practice only. Participants were informed about the study background and objectives and permission was asked to tape-record. It was made clear that information would be anonymously transcribed and reported by the primary investigator and that his reports could not be traced to individuals.