Skip to main content

Table 1 Quality assessment using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (2018)

From: Systematic review and meta-analysis of home visiting interventions aimed at enhancing child mental health, psychosocial, and developmental outcomes in vulnerable families

Citation

Quantitative nonrandomised

 

Are the participants representative of the target population?

Are measurements appropriate regarding both the outcome and intervention (or exposure)?

Are there complete outcome data?

Are the confounders accounted for in the design and analysis?

During the study period, is the intervention administered (or exposure occurred) as intended?

Chartier et al. (2017) [27]

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Can’t tell

Julian et al. (2021) [28]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

O’Malley et al. (2021) [29]

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

van Grieken et al. (2019) [30]

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Can’t tell

Mixed Methods

 

Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question?

Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question?

Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted?

Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed?

Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved?

Giallo et al. (2021) [31]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

O'Donnell et al. (2023) [32]

Yes

Yes

Yes

Can’t tell

Yes

  1. Note. All studies met MMAT screening questions criteria S1, “Are there clear research questions?”; and S2, “Do the collected data allow to address the research questions?”. The ‘Can’t tell’ response category means that the paper do not report appropriate information to answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’