Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary of quality scores for empirical studies (n = 3)

From: A systematic review of the literature on ethical aspects of transitional care between child- and adult-orientated health services

 

Racine et al., 2013

Larivière-Bastien et al., 2013

Affdal et al., 2015

1. Abstract and titlea

Good

Fair: Abstract not structured but this could be because of the style of the journal. Key ethical constructs not mentioned

Good

2. Introduction and aimsa

Good: Reasoned ethical argument and clear aim

Fair: Research questions clear but introduction not a systematic summary of the background literature

Good

3. Method and dataa

Poor: Qualitative interview and questionnaire mentioned but no subsequent mention of questionnaire. Questionnaires/ interview schedule not included

Poor: Ostensively this is a study about ethics and the researchers have taken an inductive approach but present a deductive structure for their paper, even criticising themselves for generating hypotheses rather than confirming or refuting. Questionnaires/ interview schedule not included

Poor: The method did not fit with the aim of the study. Adolescents were not interviewed regarding their autonomy. No detail of analytic approach given

4. Samplinga

Very poor: Description of sample but nothing about appropriate sample size or sampling strategy

Very poor: Description of sample but nothing about appropriate sample size or sampling strategy

Poor: Sampling strategy is absent. Very few participant details are given

5. Data analysisa

Fair: Description of method but no respondent validation or triangulation

Fair: Description of method but no respondent validation or triangulation

Very poor: No details of the analytic approach are provided

6. Ethics and biasa

Poor: Ethical approval for the study gained. Issues of confidentiality, approach to gaining consent to participate not mentioned although reader referred to more details about methodology in another paper. Relationship between researcher and participants not discussed

Poor: Ethical approval for the study gained but not sure from where. Issues of confidentiality, approach to gaining consent to participate not mentioned although reader referred to more details about methodology in another paper. Relationship between researcher and participants not discussed

Very poor: No reference is made to ethical permissions. Issues of confidentiality, approach to gaining consent to participate not mentioned

7. Findings/resultsa

Good

Good

Fair

8. Transferability/ generalizabilityab

Poor: Poor description of context. Poor score in 4

Poor: Poor description of context. Poor score in 4

Poor: Poor score in 4

9. Implications and usefulnessa

Fair: Some suggestions for changing practice and transition programs. No implications for further research

Fair: Some suggestions for changing practice. Mentions focus for further research

Fair: No suggestions for future research given

Total (out of 36)

25

23

22

  1. aGood = 4, Fair = 3, Poor = 2, Very Poor = 1
  2. bIn order to score  Good or Fair score for transferability/generalizability, the paper should score Good or Fair for question 4 (Sampling).