Skip to main content

Table 1 Quality assessment of included studies

From: Health providers’ and pregnant women’s perspectives about smoking cessation support: a COM-B analysis of a global systematic review of qualitative studies

Study number

Author (year)

Abstract and title

Intro and aims

Method and data

Sampling

Data analysis

Ethics and bias

Results

Transferability

Implications and usefulness

Total quality assessment score

1

Abrahamsson (2005) [19]

Good

Good

Fair

Fair

Good

Fair

Good

Fair

Good

32

2

DeWilde (2015) [27]

Fair

Fair

Poor

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Poor

Fair

25

3

Everett (2005) [28]

Fair

Good

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

28

4

Longman (2018) [29]

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Poor

Good

Good

Good

34

5

Randall (2009) [30]

Fair

Very Poor

Poor

Poor

Poor

Good

Fair

Poor

Poor

21

6

Rezk-Hanna (2018) [47]

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

36

7

Reardon (2016) [26]

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Poor

Good

34

8

Bull (2007) [22]

Poor

Fair

Poor

Fair

Fair

Good

Fair

Good

Fair

22

9

Colomar (2015) [48]

Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Fair

Fair

Good

Poor

Fair

28

10

Herberts (2012) [49]

Good

Good

Poor

Fair

Fair

Poor

Fair

Poor

Fair

26

11

Aquilino (2003) [23]

Good

Good

Fair

Fair

Poor

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

28

12

Thomson (2019) [25]

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Fair

Good

35

13

Thomson (2019) [21]

Good

Fair

Good

Good

Good

Fair

Good

Poor

Fair

31

14

Ashwin (2010) [31]

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Good

Good

Fair

Fair

29

15

Bovill (2018) [33]

Good

Good

Good

Good

Fair

Good

Good

Good

Good

35

16

Bowker (2015) [34]

Good

Fair

Fair

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Fair

33

17

Britton (2017) [35]

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Fair

Good

Fair

Good

34

18

Butterworth (2014) [36]

Fair

Good

Fair

Fair

Fair

Good

Good

Fair

Fair

30

19

Gamble (2015) [37]

Fair

Fair

Fair

Poor

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Good

27

20

Goszczyńska (2016) [38]

Good

Good

Good

Good

Fair

Good

Good

Fair

Fair

33

21

Haslam (2001) [39]

Poor

Fair

Fair

Poor

Poor

Poor

Fair

Poor

Fair

22

22

Haugland (1996) [42]

Fair

Good

Good

Fair

Fair

Very Poor

Fair

Fair

Fair

27

23

Hotham (2002) [40]

Fair

Good

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Poor

Fair

Poor

26

24

Howard (2013) [41]

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Fair

Good

35

25

Lendahls (2002) [43]

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Fair

Good

Fair

Fair

28

26

Naughton (2013) [44]

Fair

Good

Good

Fair

Good

Fair

Good

Fair

Fair

31

27

Naughton (2018) [51]

Good

Fair

Good

Good

Good

Fair

Good

Fair

Good

33

28

Petersen (2009) [45]

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Fair

Good

Good

Good

35

29

Wiggington (2013) [46]

Good

Fair

Poor

Fair

Fair

Fair

Good

Fair

Fair

28

30

Wood (2008) [50]

Good

Good

Good

Fair

Fair

Fair

Good

Fair

Good

32

31

Bar-Zeev (2019) [24]

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Fair

Good

35

32

Reeks (2020) [20]

Good

Good

Good

Fair

Good

Fair

Good

Fair

Good

29

  1. *Total Quality Assessment Score out of 36
  2. 4 = Good; 3 = Fair; 2 = Poor; 1 = Very Poor. High quality: 30–36 points; medium quality: 24–29 points; low quality: 9–24 points