Study summary | Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Ratings: Qualitativeb | ||||||
Citation, country | Intervention type | Designa | Qualitative approach appropriate | Data collection methods adequate | Findings adequately derived from data | Interpretation sufficiently substantiated by data | Coherence between data sources, collection, analysis and interpretation |
Aunger et al., 2020 [72], UK | Lifestyle | Mixed methods feasibility study (ratings for qualitative descriptive component with data collection via participants’ sedentary behavior booklets and feasibility questionnaires) | Y | N | ? | Y | Y |
Bardgett et al., 2016 [73], UK | Education | Qualitative descriptive with data collection via a postal questionnaire | Y | N | Y | Y | Y |
Berg et al., 2019 [74], Sweden | Education | Qualitative descriptive with data collection via semi-structured interviews | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Bin Sheeha et al., 2020 [75], UK | Education Exercise Other: Acupuncture | Phenomenological with data collection via a single focus group | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Causey-Upton and Howell, 2017 [76], USA | Education | Transcendental phenomenological with data collection via semi-structured interviews | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Causey-Upton et al., 2020b [77], USA | Education | Explanatory sequential mixed methods (ratings for qualitative descriptive component with data collection via semi-structured interviews) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
das Nair et al., 2018 [45], UK | Psychological | Mixed methods feasibility study (ratings for qualitative component with data collection via semi-structured interviews) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Education | Ethnography with data collection via observations/job shadowing and semi-structured interviews | Y | Y | Y | ? | Y | |
Goldsmith et al., 2017 [80]c, Canada | Education | Qualitative descriptive component of a mixed methods prospective cohort study with data collection via semi-structured interviews | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Høvik et al., 2018 [81], Norway | Education | Qualitative descriptive with data collection via focus groups | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Education | Action research study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | |
Sharif et al., 2020 [84], UK | Education Exercise | Qualitative descriptive with data collection via semi-structured interviews | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Smith et al., 2018 [85], USA | Education | Qualitative descriptive with data collection via open-ended, structured interviews | Y | N | ? | ? | N |
Snowden et al., 2020 [86], UK | Lifestyle Education (education addressed briefly in the feasibility study qualitative component) | Mixed methods involving a non-randomized feasibility study followed by a pilot study (ratings for qualitative descriptive components of the feasibility study and pilot study with data collection via focus groups and interviews) | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Specht et al., 2016 [87], Denmark | Education | Phenomenological-hermeneutic with data collection via observations and semi-structured interviews | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Study summary | Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Ratings: Quantitative Randomized Controlled Trialsb | ||||||
Citation, country | Intervention type | Designa | Random allocation appropriately performed | Groups comparable at baseline | Complete outcome data | Outcome assessors blinded | Participants adhered to assigned intervention |
Aunger et al., 2020 [72]d, UK | Lifestyle | Mixed methods feasibility study (ratings for quantitative component) | Y | ? | ? | N | ? |
das Nair et al., 2018 [45], UK | Psychological | Mixed methods feasibility study (ratings for quantitative component) | Y | Y | N | N | N |
Eschalier et al., 2017 [48], France | Education | RCT | ? | Y | Y | N | Y |
Snowden et al., 2020 [86]d, UK | Lifestyle Education | Mixed methods involving a non-randomized feasibility study followed by a pilot study (ratings for quantitative component of pilot study) | Y | ? | ? | N | Y |
Study summary | Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Ratings: Quantitative Non-Randomized Studiesb | ||||||
Citation, country | Intervention type | Designa | Participants representative of target population | Measurements appropriate | Complete outcome data | Confounders accounted for | Intervention administered as intended |
Snowden et al., 2020 [86], UK | Lifestyle Education | Mixed methods involving a non-randomized feasibility study followed by a pilot study (ratings for quantitative component of feasibility study) | N | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Study summary | Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Ratings: Quantitative Descriptiveb | ||||||
Citation, country | Intervention type | Designa | Relevance of sampling strategy | Sample representative of target population | Measurements appropriate | Risk of non-response bias low | Statistical analysis appropriate |
Barnes et al., 2018 [88], South Africa | Education | Cross-sectional survey with data collection via structured interviews | Y | ? | N | ? | Y |
Causey-Upton et al., 2018 [89], USA | Education | Cross-sectional online “pilot” survey | N | N | Y | N | Y |
Causey-Upton et al., 2020a [90], USA | Education | Explanatory sequential mixed methods (ratings for cross-sectional survey) | Y | ? | Y | N | Y |
Eschalier et al., 2013 [91], France | Education | Survey embedded within an intervention validation study | ? | ? | Y | ? | Y |
Huber et al., 2015b [92], Switzerland | Education | Questionnaire development and psychometric testing embedded within an RCT | ? | ? | Y | ? | Y |
Plenge et al., 2018 [93], South Africa | Lifestyle | Delphi study | N | N | Y | ? | Y |
SooHoo et al., 2011 [94], USA | Education | Modified Delphi study | Y | ? | N | ? | Y |
Snowden et al., 2020 [86], UK | Lifestyle Education | Mixed methods involving a non-randomized feasibility study followed by a pilot study (ratings for the COM-B questionnaire component of the intervention development) | ? | ? | Y | ? | Y |
Westby et al., 2018 [30], Canada | Education Exercise Lifestyle | Modified Delphi study | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Study summary | Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Ratings: Mixed Methodsb | ||||||
Citation, country | Intervention type | Designa | Adequate rationale for mixed methods design | Different study components effectively integrated | Outputs of the integration adequately interpreted | Divergences and in-consistencies adequately addressed | Different components adhered to corresponding quality criteria |
Aunger et al., 2020 [72], UK | Lifestyle | Mixed methods feasibility study (ratings for overall study) | Y | N | N | Y | N |
Education | Explanatory sequential mixed methods (ratings for overall study) | N | N | N | Y | N | |
das Nair et al., 2018 [45], UK | Psychological | Mixed methods feasibility study (ratings for overall study) | ? | Y | Y | Y | N |
Snowden et al., 2020 [86], UK | Lifestyle Education | Mixed methods involving a non-randomized feasibility study followed by a pilot study (ratings for overall study) | ? | Y | Y | Y | N |