Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment of included studies

From: Interventions to encourage discussion of end-of-life preferences between members of the general population and the people closest to them - a systematic literature review

Study ID

Aspect

Assessment

Score

Comments

Miyashita et al.[45]

Abstract and title

Good

4

 

Introduction and Aims

Good

4

 

Method and data

Good

4

Questionnaires not presented but described in detail

Sampling

Good

4

 

Data analysis

Good

4

 

Ethics and bias

Good

4

 

Findings/results

Good

4

 

Transferability/generalisability

Good

4

 

Implications and usefulness

Good

4

 

Total

 

36

 

Seymour and Clarke et al.[41]

Abstract and title

Good

4

 

Introduction and Aims

Good

4

 

Method and data

Good

4

 

Sampling

Good

4

 

Data analysis

Good

4

 

Ethics and bias

Fair

3

Ethical approval not relevant, evaluation study. Presents discussion of limitations.

Findings/results

Good

4

 

Transferability/generalisability

Good

4

 

Implications and usefulness

Good

4

 

Total

 

35

 

Hartley 2012

Abstract and title

Poor

1

Abstract not normally expected in the format of a book chapter

Introduction and Aims

Good

4

 

Method and data

Fair

3

Questionnaires not presented

Sampling

Good

4

 

Data analysis

Fair

3

Described simply as ‘content analysis’

Ethics and bias

Fair

3

Ethical approval not relevant, evaluation study

Findings/results

Good

4

 

Transferability/generalisability

Good

4

 

Implications and usefulness

Good

4

 

Total

 

30

 

Sanders et al.[44]

Abstract and title

Good

4

 

Introduction and Aims

Good

4

 

Method and data

Good

4

 

Sampling

Good

4

 

Data analysis

Good

4

 

Ethics and bias

Fair

3

Ethical approval not relevant, evaluation study

Findings/results

Good

4

 

Transferability/generalisability

Good

4

 

Implications and usefulness

Good

4

Focussed on acceptability rather than outcomes

Total

 

35

 

Hickey[32]

Abstract and title

Fair

3

 

Introduction and Aims

Fair

3

 

Method and data

Fair

3

Simple observations reported, but not clear who did the observing

Sampling

Good

4

Not applicable, descriptive observational study

Data analysis

Fair

3

Not applicable, descriptive observational study

Ethics and bias

Fair

3

Intervention and evaluation methods had few ethical and bias issues

Findings/results

Poor

2

Did not quantify the numbers of people who engaged in discussion and provided only one example; however this was not the main topic of the paper

Transferability/generalisability

Good

4

 

Implications and usefulness

Good

4

 

Total

 

29

 
Back to article page

BMC Palliative Care

ISSN: 1472-684X

Contact us