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]
Back to article page

Reproductive Health

ISSN: 1742-4755