Gender-Related Barriers and Delays in Accessing Tuberculosis Diagnostic and Treatment Services: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies

Table 1

Quality of included studies.

Validity assessment tool^a		Score
Item number	Question	Yes (𝑛)	No (𝑛)	Unclear (𝑛)
1	Is there a clear statement of research aims?	28	0	0
2	Is the research design appropriate to address the aims?	21	0	7
3	Are the data collection methods appropriate to obtain the aims?	23	2	3
4	Are the recruitment/sampling strategies appropriate for the aims?	21	0	7
5	Is the study context clearly described?	27	1	0
6	Have ethical considerations been addressed?	17	0	11
7	Is there a clear description of the data collection procedures?	26	2	0
8	Is the data analysis appropriate for research questions?	26	0	2
9	Are the findings clearly presented?	23	5	0
10	Are the claims made supported by sufficient evidence?	24	4	0

aAfter examining several quality criteria for qualitative research [14–16], we developed an adapted 10-question version of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) quality assessment tool based on factors determined to critically inform our review process. Our validity assessment was used to examine the quality of data from the included studies informing this review, not to exclude studies. For questions 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, studies were scored based on the presence (yes), absence (no), or insufficient information (unclear) regarding the stated criteria. For questions 2, 3, 9, and 10, a subjective review and assessment was performed to determine if the study had any minor or major issues related to compliance with the stated criteria. Accordingly, studies were scored “yes” if either no issues or minor issues were found, “no” if major issues were found, and “unclear” if there was insufficient information.