Skip to main content

Table 1 Quality appraisal of included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT)

From: Psychological factors associated with foot and ankle pain: a mixed methods systematic review

Author, Year

Screening

Qualitative studies

Quantitative non-randomised studies

Mixed methods studies

Score

 

S1

S2

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

 

Awale 2015

Yes

Yes

     

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

     

100%

Briet 2016

Yes

Yes

     

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

     

80%

Butterworth 2015

Yes

Yes

     

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

     

60%

Ceravolo 2018

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

80%

Chimenti 2020

Yes

Yes

     

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

     

80%

Cotchett 2015

Yes

Yes

     

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

     

80%

Cotchett 2016

Yes

Yes

     

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

     

80%

Cotchett 2017

Yes

Yes

     

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

     

80%

Cotchett 2020

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

          

100%

Harutaichun 2020

Yes

Yes

     

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

     

80%

Lentz 2010

Yes

Yes

     

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

     

60%

McAuliffe 2017

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

          

100%

Palomo-Lopez 2020

Yes

Yes

     

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

     

80%

Shivarathre 2014

Yes

Yes

     

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

     

80%

Silbernagel 2011

Yes

Yes

     

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

     

80%

Tojo 2018

Yes

Yes

     

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

     

80%

Turner 2020

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

          

100%

Yeowell 2021

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

          

100%

  1. Screening questions (for all studies).
  2. S1: Are there clear research questions?
  3. S2: Do the collected data allow to address the research questions?
  4. Qualitative.
  5. 1.1. Is the qualitative approach appropriate to answer the research question?
  6. 1.2. Are the qualitative data collection methods adequate to address the research question?
  7. 1.3. Are the findings adequately derived from the data?
  8. 1.4. Is the interpretation of results sufficiently substantiated by data?
  9. 1.5. Is there coherence between qualitative data sources, collection, analysis and interpretation?
  10. Quantitative non-randomised.
  11. 3.1. Are the participants representative of the target population?
  12. 3.2. Are measurements appropriate regarding both the outcome and intervention (or exposure)?
  13. 3.3. Are there complete outcome data?
  14. 3.4. Are the confounders accounted for in the design and analysis?
  15. 3.5. During the study period, is the intervention administered (or exposure occurred) as intended?
  16. Mixed methods.
  17. 5.1. Is there an adequate rationale for using a mixed methods design to address the research question?
  18. 5.2. Are the different components of the study effectively integrated to answer the research question?
  19. 5.3. Are the outputs of the integration of qualitative and quantitative components adequately interpreted?
  20. 5.4. Are divergences and inconsistencies between quantitative and qualitative results adequately addressed?
  21. 5.5. Do the different components of the study adhere to the quality criteria of each tradition of the methods involved?
Back to article page

Journal of Foot and Ankle Research

ISSN: 1757-1146