Skip to main content

Table 1 Quality assessment of included studies

From: Provision of injectable contraceptives by community health workers in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review of safety, acceptability and effectiveness

Reference, country Overall quality assessments Components of quality assessment
Selection biasa Study Design Confoundingb Blinding Data collection methodc Withdrawals and drop-outs
Weidert et al. [10] Ethiopia Moderate Strong Strong Weak Weak Moderate NA
Okegbe et al. [4] Republic of Benin Moderate Strong Strong Weak Weak Moderate NA
Mwembo et al. [14] Democratic Republic of Congo Moderate Moderate Strong Weak Weak Moderate Moderate
Comfort et al. [17] Madagascar Weak Weak Moderate Weak Weak Moderate NA
Prata et al. [21] Ethiopia Weak Weak Strong Weak Weak Moderate Moderate
Stanback et al. [19] Uganda Weak Weak Strong Strong Weak Moderate Strong
Krueger et al. [25] Uganda Weak Weak Moderate Weak Weak Strong NA
Hoke et al. [18] Madagascar Weak Strong Moderate Weak Weak Moderate NA
Jacinto et al. [22] Mozambique Weak Strong Strong Weak Weak Moderate Strong
Chin-quee et al. [15] Zambia Weak Strong Moderate Weak Weak Moderate NA
Olawo et al. [23] Kenya Weak Weak Moderate Weak Weak Strong Strong
FHI-USAID [24] Senegal Weak Strong Moderate Weak Weak Strong Strong
Poss et al. [20] Uganda Weak Weak Moderate Strong Weak Moderate Weak
  1. aFor observational studies, likelihood of bias was rated based on how likely the participants can be representative of the target population or for non-RCT rated as ‘very likely’ to be representative of target population if not referred from a source and not self-referred
  2. bAssessment of confounders was based on how far authors went to control confounding by design or in their analyses
  3. cData collection method rated as strong if from medical records and moderate or weak if from self-reported data or assessment/screening by researchers Guidance taken from EPHPP Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies Dictionary