From: A systematic integrative review of programmes addressing the social care needs of older prisoners
Paper No | Author(s) | METHODOLOGICAL APPRAISAL SUMMARY | Quality Category | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Strengths | Limitations | |||
1 | Bronstein & Wright | Structured and full abstract, background and aims; inclusion of interview protocol; clear data collection process; some discussion of analytic process and triangulation; secured appropriate ethical approval; structured results section | Questionable methodological appropriateness; interviews not taped, but used quotes; lack of detail of sampling, informed consent & data analysis; conclusions made about prisoners limited by not talking to any; limitations & biases not discussed | LOW |
2 | Cloyes, Rosenkranz, Wold, et al | Structured and full abstract, background and aims; full data analysis description; secured ethical permission and described informed consent process; clear presentation of results | Lack of explanation of method; patchy socio-demographics, although discussed; no reflections on researcher bias | HIGH |
3 | Cloyes, Rosenkranz, Berry et al | Structured and full abstract, background and aims; interviews recorded; fairly large sample size; full data analysis description, validation & triangulation; ethics approval; thorough results section | Lack of detail about interviews; no interviews with prisoner patients; no socio-demographic information; no description of informed consent process; assume programme is effective, no evidence presented; bias not discussed | MODERATE |
4 | Cloyes, Rosenkranz, Supiano, et al | Structured and full abstract, background and aims; taped interviews; method appropriate; quite large sample size; full data analysis description, validation & triangulation; ethics approval; full discussion of study implications | Lack of detail about the interviews; did not interview prisoner patients; no socio-demographic detail presented; bias not discussed; results about prisoner volunteers contained no detail from them and no quotes throughout; opinion presented as fact | MODERATE |
5 | Hoffman & Dickinson | Clear and informative abstract and introduction; sampling strategy detailed, and good size and breadth, with high response rate | Aims not wholly clear; methodology detail scant, esp. on surveys used; no socio-demographic, data analysis, ethics or bias information; findings lack clarity; opinions stated as fact | LOW |
6 | Loeb, Hollenbeak, et al | Structured and full abstract, background, aims, methods, sampling, data analysis and findings; presented discussion guide; thorough discussion of ethics and bias | Quite small sample size; interviews not taped but used quotes; prisoner patients not sampled | HIGH |
7 | Maull | Report of one of the first in-prison hospice programmes, which influenced their development across the USA. | Lack of evaluation detail in abstract, lack of evidence for background; lack of information on methods, sampling, analysis, ethics and bias, and few findings presented. | LOW |
8 | Maull | Fairly comprehensive background, guidelines resonate with later research, discussion of implications. | Lack of detail in abstract, literature review used only one database but information not synthesised, vague aim, inadequate method, sampling, data analysis, ethics & bias and findings. | LOW |
9 | Stone, Papadopoulos, et al | Clear abstract and aims and method guideline; value as first review of hospices published | Justification of UK–USA comparison weak; some background lacking; no quality appraisal; data sampling confusing; search strategy not exhaustive; data extraction unclear; triangulation unmentioned; unclear results; conclusions overstated | LOW |
10 | Supiano, Cloyes & Berry | Clear abstract and aims, full background, taped interviews, included interview guide, clear sampling, full data analysis description, socio-demographic and ethics information, clear results, discussion of limitations and transferability issues | Full confidentiality could not be guaranteed, was discussed as a limitation; hospice presented as ‘thriving’ with no evidence in support of that assertion, and ‘recent’ even though in existence for 16 years. | HIGH |
11 | Wion & Loeb | Clear abstract, methodological guidelines, quality appraisal & extraction method, as well as validation and triangulation; results detailed and easy to follow; discussed implications & limitations | Background brief, 6 research questions; searched 5 databases using 4 search terms only; author bias issue not fully justified; results not always well synthesised & very lengthy | MODERATE |
12 | Wright & Bronstein a | Structured and full abstract, background and aims; discussion of bias affecting result; ethics permission obtained; structured findings | Only sampled hospice leads; no information on interview guide topics; sampling strategy not apparently comprehensive; brief analysis, did not tape interviews; no informed consent discussion; results not always synthesised; extensive quotes used – but not verbatim transcripts; v similar to previous study | MODERATE |
13 | Wright & Bronstein b | Structured and full abstract, background and aims; discussion of bias affecting result; question used was presented; ethic approval granted | Only sampled hospice leads; lack of sampling and analysis detail; did not tape interviews but presented ‘quotes’; no informed consent process described; findings brief relative to Introduction; results not always synthesised; similar results to previous work | MODERATE |
14 | Yampolskaya & Winston | Fairly comprehensive abstract and background; attempt to contact ‘all’ prison hospices; findings have proved influential, especially the components identified | Some missing info from abstract, introduction lacked references; lack of methodological and sampling information; no socio-demographics; very basic analytic information, none on ethics nor bias; findings confused and lacked detail | LOW |
15 | Cichowlas & Chen | No methodology to appraise | LOW | |
16 | Evans, Herzog et al | No methodology to appraise | LOW | |
17 | Head, 2005 | No methodology to appraise | LOW | |
18 | Linder, Knauf et al | No methodology to appraise | LOW | |
19 | Ratcliff & Craig | No methodology to appraise | LOW | |
20 | Zimmermann | No methodology to appraise | LOW | |
21 | Kopera-Frye, Harrison, et al | Mostly full abstract, background and aims; good description of surveys (some standardised), data collection and sample with socio-demographics and response rate; ethics and informed consent discussed; detailed findings; sampled prisoners | Not all assertions for background were evidenced; some lack of data analysis detail in methods section, especially qualitative; no bias discussion; results not presented in easiest way to follow, especially qualitative | HIGH |
22 | Harrison, 2006 | No methodology to appraise | LOW | |
23 | Harrison & Benedetti | No methodology to appraise | LOW | |
24 | Hodel & Sanchez | No methodology to appraise | LOW | |
25 | Chow | No methodology to appraise | LOW | |
26 | Sannier, Danjour et al | No methodology to appraise | LOW | |
27 | Moll | Mostly full abstract, full background details on areas asked about in survey; some methodological and sample detail; detailed findings and recommendations | Lack of methodology detail, data collection, sampling strategy, and participant numbers; no prisoners sampled; analysis technique, informed consent & biases not presented; very difficult to follow findings which are mostly unsynthesised | MODERATE |
28 | Hunsberger | No methodology to appraise | LOW | |
29 | McCarthy & Rose | No methodology to appraise | LOW |