Skip to main content

Table 4 Assessing the quality of the papers

From: Health vulnerabilities of readymade garment (RMG) workers: a systematic review

(A) Assessing the quality of the quantitative studies through using EPHPP (Effective Public Health Practice Project) tool (yes = 1, no = 0)

Author(s) & Year of publication

Selection Bias

Study Design

Confounders

Blinding

Data Collection Methods

Withdrawals & Drop-outs

Intervention Integrity

Analyses

Scores Attained

Ratings (1–3 = weak, 4–6 = moderate, 7–8 = strong)

  

Chumchai et al., 2015 [7]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

strong

  

Shanbhag & Bobby, 2012 [8]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

strong

  

Chen et al., 2017 [6]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

strong

  

Padmini & Venmathi, 2012 [22]

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

6

moderate

  

Makurat et al., 2016 [11]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

strong

  

Parimalam et al., 2007 [27]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

strong

  

Ahmed & Raihan, 2014 [4]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

strong

  

Fatema et al., 2014 [29]

1

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

6

moderate

  

Hasnain et al., 2014 [26]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

strong

  

Rahman & Rahman, 2013 [28]

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

0

6

moderate

  

Steinisch et al., 2013 [10]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

strong

  

Steinisch et al., 2014 [31]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

strong

  

Khan et al., 2015 [24]

1

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

5

moderate

  

Fitch et al., 2017 [25]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

strong

  

Akhter et al., 2010 [23]

0

1

0

1

1

1

1

0

5

moderate

  

Fitch et al., 2015 [30]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

strong

  

(B) Assessing the quality of the quantitative part of mixed-method studies through using EPHPP (Effective Public Health Practice Project) tool (yes = 1, no = 0)

  

Saha et al., 2010 [9]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

strong

  

De Silva et al., 2013 [32]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

strong

  

Lombardo et al., 2012 [17]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

8

strong

  

(C) Assessing the quality of the qualitative part of mixed-method studies through using CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) tool (yes = 1, no = 0)

  

Author(s) & Year of publication

Clear research goal/aims

Appropriate methodology

Appropriate research design

Appropriate recruitment strategy

Justification of the way of data collection

Researcher & participants relationship considered

Consideration of ethical issues

Rigorous data analysis

Explicit findings

Value of research

Scores attained

Ratings (1–4 = weak, 5–8 = moderate, 9–10 = strong)

Saha et al., 2010 [9]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

10

strong

De Silva et al., 2013 [32]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

10

strong

Lombardo et al., 2012 [17]

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

10

strong