62 For each study, we conducted a quality assessment. MDB assessed the quality of the included studies, which was then checked by EMF or AFW. We assessed the quality of quantitative studies using the checklist of Downs and Black26. We added three items, derived from the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool,27 to detect potential validity problems related to study participation. We assessed the quality of qualitative studies using a checklist derived from the Cochrane Supplemental Handbook Guidance28. The following tables show the scores per study and the overall quality rating. We determined overall quality by examining both the total rating score and the quality in the separate domains. We chose this approach in order to facilitate comparison of the separate study types, where we used different checklists but similar assessment domains. In addition, we wanted to have a closer look at the domains of interest (reporting, external validity, internal validity, study participation) and weigh them in the overall quality assessment. Supplemental Table 3a-d: Quality assessment rating system Quality Score Minimal demands related to separate quality domains High quality 14-17 (cc + cohort) 20-23 (qualitative) 26-31 (intervention) 4 high quality 3 high quality 1 moderate quality 3 high quality 1 low quality Moderate quality 12-14 (cc + cohort) 17-21 (qualitative) 22-26 (intervention) 2 high quality 2 moderate quality or 1 moderate and 1 low quality 1 high quality and 3 moderate quality 4 moderate quality Low quality 0-13 (cc+cohort) 0-18 (qualitative) 0-23 (intervention) 2 high quality 2 low quality All other combinations, with max. 1 high quality Supplemental Table 3a Quality assessment rating system: combination of overall score and domain-specific quality rates determine study quality The ratings of the separate studies are in Supplemental File 3b-3d
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw