Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Quality appraisal of included papers

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