Skip to main content

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