Table 3 Quality Appraisal
From: International palliative care research priorities: A systematic review
| Â | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Q11 | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JBI Qualitative | ||||||||||||
 Diffin et al | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N/A | Y | U | Y | – | 8/10 |
 Pillemer et al | N/A | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | N/A | Y | N/A/ | Y | – | 6/10 |
 Powel et al. | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N/A/ | Y | N/A/ | Y | – | 8/10 |
 JLA PSP | Y | Y | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | Y | Y | – | – | – | 4/8 |
JBI Systematic review | ||||||||||||
 Riffin et al. | Y | Y | Y | Y | U | U | Y | Y | U | Y | Y | 8/11 |
JBI Cross sectional | ||||||||||||
 Perkins et al | Y | Y | N/A | Y | U | U | U | Y | – | – | – | 4/8 |
Key | ||||||||||||
| Â | JBI Qualitative Checklist | JBI Systematic review | JBI Cross sectional | |||||||||
Q1 | Is there congruity between the stated philosophical perspective and the research methodology? | Is the review question clearly and explicitly stated? | Were the criteria for inclusion in the sample clearly defined? | |||||||||
Q2 | Is there congruity between the research methodology and the research question or objectives? | Were the inclusion criteria appropriate for the review question? | Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? | |||||||||
Q3 | Is there congruity between the research methodology and the methods used to collect data? | Was the search strategy appropriate? | Was the exposure measured in a valid and reliable way? | |||||||||
Q4 | Is there congruity between the research methodology and the representation and analysis of data? | Were the sources and resources used to search for studies adequate? | Were objective, standard criteria used for measurement of the condition? | |||||||||
Q5 | Is there congruity between the research methodology and the interpretation of results? | Were the criteria for appraising studies appropriate? | Were confounding factors identified? | |||||||||
Q6 | Is there a statement locating the researcher culturally or theoretically? | Was critical appraisal conducted by two or more reviewers independently? | Were strategies to deal with confounding factors stated? | |||||||||
Q7 | Is the influence of the researcher on the research, and vice- versa, addressed? | Were there methods to minimize errors in data extraction? | Were the outcomes measured in a valid and reliable way? | |||||||||
Q8 | Are participants, and their voices, adequately represented? | Were the methods used to combine studies appropriate? | Was appropriate statistical analysis used? | |||||||||
Q9 | Is the research ethical according to current criteria or, for recent studies, and is there evidence of ethical approval by an appropriate body? | Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? | Â | Â | Â | Â | ||||||
Q10 | Do the conclusions drawn in the research report flow from the analysis, or interpretation, of the data? | Were recommendations for policy and/or practice supported by the reported data? | Â | Â | Â | Â | ||||||
Q11 | Â | Â | Â | Â | Were the specific directives for new research appropriate? | Â | Â | Â | Â | |||