Two studies were rated strong quality (Flynn et al., 2006; Scheier and Grenard, 2010), four were rated moderate quality (Wallack and Barrows, 1982; Barber and Grichting, 1990; Kypri et al., 2005; Lowe et al., 2010;) and 18 were rated weak quality (Plant et al., 1979; Barber et al., 1989; Casswell et al., 1990; Casiro et al., 1994; Allamani et al., 2000; Kelley et al., 2000; Grønbæk et al., 2001; Surkan et al., 2003; Karlsson et al., 2005; Awopetu et al., 2008; Kaariainen et al., 2008; Atkinson et al., 2011; van Gemert et al., 2011; Hanson et al., 2012; Siriwardhana et al., 2013; van Leeuwen et al., 2013; Dixon et al., 2015; Trees, 2015). EPHPP tool domain ratings indicated 20 studies did not report reliability and validity of data collection tools, ten studies had high risk of selection bias and nine were rated weak on study design (Table 2).
EPHPP quality assessment ratings
 |
|
EPHPP quality assessment ratings
|
|
