Online Resource 2: Quality Assessment of Studies Meeting Inclusion Criteria
Assessment of Quantitative Studies
Question / objective sufficiently described?
Study design evident and appropriate?
Method of subject/comparison group selection or source
of information/input variables described and appropriate?
Subject (and comparison group, if applicable)
characteristics sufficiently described?
If interventional and random allocation was possible, was
it described?
If interventional and blinding of investigators was
possible, was it reported?
If interventional and blinding of subjects was possible,
was it reported?
Outcome and (if applicable) exposure measure(s) well
defined and robust to measurement / misclass-ification
bias? means of assessment reported?
Sample size appropriate?
Analytic methods described/justified and appropriate?
Some estimate of variance is reported for the main results?
Controlled for confounding?
Results reported in sufficient detail?
Conclusions supported by the results?
Totals
Assessment of Qualitative Studies
1
1
Totals
1
Cheema, 2012
1
Mason, 2010
1
Vegter, 2010
8
1
Chim, 2010
1
Mason & Drummond,
2009
1
Gallego & Taylor, 2009
1
Rocchi 2008
1
Menon 2005
1
Martin 2001
Erden 2014
1
Singer, 2000
Romley, 2012
1
Foy, 1999
Linley, 2012
1
# Genl Public Studies
Jenkins 2011
1
Mileshkin 2009
5
2
O'Shea 2008
1
Gallego, 2007
1
Public Payer Funding Preference
Schomerus 2006
Seabury 2012
1
Burgoyne 1997
Oh 2012
1
1
# Patient Studies
Lakdawalla 2012
Owen-Smith 2010
1
1
General Public Funding Preference
Jenkins 2011
# Quantitative Studies
# Qualitative Studies
Goldman, 2010
Patient Funding Preferences
Burgoyne, 1997
Type of Study :
1
1
1
1
1
20
7
27*
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
nap
nap
2
2
nap
2
nap
2
nap
2
2
nap
nap nap
nap nap
nap
nap nap
nap
nap
2
na
nap
nap
1
nap nap
nap
1
nap
nap nap
nap nap
nap
nap nap
nap
nap
2
na
nap
2
nap nap nap
nap
1
nap
nap nap
nap nap
nap
nap nap
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
19
22
86%
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
0
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
19 22 21 18
22 28 24 22
86% 79% 88% 82%
1
1
2
2
nap
0
1
15
20
75%
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
na
2
0
nap 1
nap
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
19 21 18
20 18
22 22 18
22 22
86% 95% 100% 91% 82%
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
1
2
0
2
nap 1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
23 17 19 21
24 24 24 22
96% 71% 79% 95%
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
23 22 17
24 28 22
96% 79% 77%
2
1
2
0
nap
1
2
16
20
80%
Question / objective sufficiently described?
Study design evident and appropriate?
Context for the study clear?
Connection to a theoretical framework / wider body of
knowledge?
Sampling strategy described, relevant and justified?
Data collection methods clearly described and systematic?
Data analysis clearly described and systematic?
Use of verification procedure(s) to establish credibility?
Conclusions supported by the results?
Reflexivity of the account?
Totals
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
17
16
15
20
20
20
85%
80%
75%
* two studies examined both patient and general public preferences, and thus were double counted in this table (only); the total number of included studies was 25.
nap = not applicable, due to study design.
Kmet et.al. indicate that studies not meeting the 50% threshold should not be included.
Reference: Kmet, Lee, Cook, 2004
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
16 18 17
20 20 20
80% 90% 85%
1
2
1
2
2
1
15
20
75%