Skip to main content

Table 3 Views studies’ summaries and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool ratings

From: Content and delivery of pre-operative interventions for patients undergoing total knee replacement: a rapid review

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

Drew et al., 2019 [78], Judge et al., 2020 [79], UK

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

Lucas et al., 2013a [82] , 2013b [83], UK

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

Causey-Upton et al., 2020a [90], 2020b [77], USA

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

  1. COM-B questionnaire Adapted version of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behavior model self-evaluation questionnaire; N no; RCT randomized controlled trial; UK United Kingdom; USA United States of America; Y yes; ? can’t tell
  2. a All RCTs, pilot and feasibility studies involved two arms unless otherwise stated
  3. b For studies with mixed populations, ratings were made specifically for participants who met the review eligibility criteria
  4. c Reported the qualitative component of a mixed methods study, but the quantitative results are not reported in the same article; therefore, the study was appraised using the qualitative category of the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool only.
  5. d Quantitative outcome data were not presented separately for participants undergoing knee replacement; therefore, the study does not meet the criteria for an outcomes study