Skip to main content

Table 3 Quality assessment of eligible studies

From: Reproductive justice in the time of COVID-19: a systematic review of the indirect impacts of COVID-19 on sexual and reproductive health

Author Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Item 9 Item 10 Item 11 Item 12 Item 13 Item 14 Item 15 Item 16 Total score % Rating
Aiken et al. [32] 0 3 3 0 3 3 2 2 1 3 N/A 3 3 N/A 0 1 27 64 High
Aryal et al. [39] 0 2 3 0 1 3 3 1 0 2 N/A 2 2 N/A 0 2 21 50 Low
Coombe et al. [46] 0 3 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 N/A 2 2 N/A 0 3 17 40 Low
Endler et al. [38] 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 N/A 1 1 N/A 1 1 13 31 Low
Fuchs et al. [53] 1 2 2 0 3 2 3 1 0 1 N/A 2 1 N/A 1 2 21 50 Low
Leight et al. [42] 0 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 0 3 N/A 3 3 N/A 0 3 29 69 High
Li et al. [45] 1 3 1 0 3 1 3 1 0 1 N/A 2 2 N/A 0 3 21 50 Low
Luetke et al. [54] 1 3 3 0 3 3 3 3 0 3 N/A 3 3 N/A 0 3 31 74 High
Nagendra et al. [49] 0 3 3 0 2 3 2 3 0 3 N/A 2 1 N/A 1 1 24 57 Low
Phelan et al. [48] 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 N/A 2 2 N/A 0 3 16 38 Low
Rimmer et al. [51] 0 3 3 0 1 3 3 3 0 3 N/A 3 2 N/A 2 3 29 69 High
Roberts et al. [35] 0 3 3 0 2 2 2 2 0 2 N/A 3 2 N/A 0 3 24 57 Low
Roland et al. [41] 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 0 3 N/A 3 3 N/A 0 0 28 67 High
Stifani et al. [40] 0 3 2 0 1 2 2 2 0 1 N/A 2 2 N/A 0 3 20 48 Low
Tao et al. [52] 0 3 3 0 3 2 3 1 2 3 N/A 2 2 N/A 0 3 27 64 High
Tschann et al. [33] 0 3 1 0 1 2 2 1 0 2 N/A 2 2 N/A 0 2 18 43 Low
White et al. [36] 1 3 2 2 3 2 3 1 2 3 N/A 3 3 N/A 0 2 30 71 High
Yuksel et al. [44] 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 N/A 3 3 N/A 0 3 37 88 High
Aiken et al. [32] 0 3 3 0 3 3 2 2 1 3 N/A 3 3 N/A 0 1 27 64 High
Aryal et al. [39] 0 2 3 0 1 3 3 1 0 2 N/A 2 2 N/A 0 2 21 50 Low
Caruso et al. [43] 1 3 3 0 3 1 1 3 0 2 N/A 1 0 N/A 0 1 19 45 Low
Coombe et al. [46] 0 3 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 N/A 2 2 N/A 0 3 17 40 Low
Dell'Utri et al. [50] 1 2 3 0 3 3 3 3 0 3 N/A 2 1 N/A 1 1 26 62 High
Endler et al. [38] 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 N/A 1 1 N/A 1 1 13 31 Low
  1. Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs [29]
  2. Item 1: Explicit theoretical framework
  3. Item 2: Statement of aims/objectives in main report
  4. Item 3: Clear description of research setting
  5. Item 4: Evidence of sample size considered in terms of analysis
  6. Item 5: Representative sample of target group of a reasonable size
  7. Item 6: Description of procedure for data collection
  8. Item 7: Rationale for choice of data collection tool(s)
  9. Item 8: Detailed recruitment data
  10. Item 9: Statistical assessment of reliability and validity of measurement tool(s) (Quantitative studies only)*
  11. Item 10: Fit between research question and method of data collection (Quantitative studies only)*
  12. Item 11: Fit between research question and format and content of data collection tool e.g., interview schedule (Qualitative studies only)*
  13. Item 12: Fit between research question and method of analysis
  14. Item 13: Good justification for analytic method selected
  15. Item 14: Assessment of reliability of analytic process (Qualitative studies only)*
  16. Item 15: Evidence of user involvement in design
  17. Item 16: Strengths and limitations critically discussed
  18. Scores: 0 = not at all; 1 = very slightly; 2 = moderately; 3 = complete
  19. Total scores > 60% = High quality; scores ≤ 60% = Low quality [31]