Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary quality assessment of included studies

From: Key stakeholders’ experiences of respite services for people with dementia and their perspectives on respite service development: a qualitative systematic review

First author, year Phenomena under study Theoretical framework/orientation Setting Sampling/Recruitment Depth/Breadth of Perspective Ethics Data collection Data analysis Positionality/Reflexivity Policy/Practice Implications Quality assessment
Brataas, 2010 [31] X Medium-High
Cahill, 2003 [32] X X X X X Low-Medium
de Jong, 2009 [30] X Medium-High
Donath, 2009 [41] X X X X Medium
Donath, 2011 [40] X X X X Medium
Gilmour, 2002 [36] X X X Medium
Gústafsdóttir, 2014 [22] X X X X Medium
Hochgraeber, 2015 [27] X X Medium-High
Holm, 2003 [29] X X X X X X Low-Medium
Huang, 2016 [28] X Medium-High
Jansen, 2009 [26] X Medium-High
Kirkley, 2011 [38] X Medium-High
McGrath, 2000 [34] X X X Medium
O’Connell, 2012 [20] X X X Medium
Parahoo, 2002 [33] X X X X Medium
Perry, 2001 [42] X X X X Medium
Phillipson, 2011(IH) [23] X Medium-High
Phillipson, 2011(RR) [24] X Medium-High
Phillipson, 2012(DC) [25] X Medium-High
Robinson, 2012 [21] X Medium-High
Strang, 2000 [37] X X X X Low-Medium
Upton, 2005 [35] X X X X Medium
Woolrych, 2013 [39] X X X Medium
  1. X = Not Clear/Not Methodologically Sound; √ = Clear/Methodologically Sound
  2. Quality assessment categories: Low-Medium = 6 ≥ X, Medium 3-5X, Medium-High 2 ≤ X