The effectiveness of chronic disease management planning on self-management among patients with diabetes at general practice settings in Australia: a scoping review

Ghasemiardekani, Maryam; Willetts, Georgina; Hood, Kerry; Cross, Wendy

doi:10.1186/s12875-024-02309-4

Table 4 Quality analysis using JBI critical appraisal tools

From: The effectiveness of chronic disease management planning on self-management among patients with diabetes at general practice settings in Australia: a scoping review

JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Synthesis
Author(s)	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Q11			Total	Risk^b
Davidson et al. (2022)	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	?	✓	?	✓	✓			81%	Low
Franklin et al. (2018)	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	×	×	✓	×	✓	✓			72%	Low
Reynold et al. (2018)	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	?	✓	×	✓	✓			72%	Low
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies
Author(s)	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Q11			Total	Risk^b
John et al. (2020)	✓	✓	?	✓	✓	?	✓	✓	✓	×	✓			72%	Low
Welberry ^b et al. (2019)	✓	✓	?	✓	?	✓	✓	✓	✓	?	✓			72%	Low
Barr et al. (2019)	✓	✓	?	✓	×	✓	?	✓	✓	?	✓			63%	Moderate
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Analytical Cross-sectional Studies
Author(s)	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8						Total	Risk^b
Welberry ^a et al. (2019)	✓	✓	✓	✓	?	?	✓	✓						75%	Low
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case study
Author(s)	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10				Total	Risk^b
Choi et al. (2017)	✓	✓	?	✓	✓	✓	?	✓	✓	✓				80%	Low
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Randomized Controlled Trials
Author(s)	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Q11	Q12	Q13	Total	Risk^b
Coorey et al. (2022)	✓	?	✓	?	?	?	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	?	61%	Moderate
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for quasi-experimental studies
Author(s)	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9					Total	Risk^b
Wickramasinghe et al. (2013)	✓	✓	✓	×	✓	✓	?	✓	✓					77%	Low
JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research
Author(s)	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10				Total	Risk^b
Hegney et al. (2013)	×	✓	✓	?	✓	?	?	✓	✓	✓				60%	Moderate
Vasi et al. (2020)	×	✓	✓	✓	✓	?	?	✓	✓	✓				70%	Low
Holden et al. (2012)	×	✓	✓	?	✓	?	?	✓	?	✓				50%	Moderate
Khoo et al. (2019)	×	✓	?	?	✓	?	×	✓	✓	✓				50%	Moderate
Kennedy et al. (2021)	×	✓	✓	✓	✓	?	?	✓	✓	✓				70%	Low
Fuller et al. (2015)	×	?	✓	✓	?	?	×	?	✓	✓				40%	High
Foster and Mitchell (2013)	×	✓	✓	✓	✓	?	×	✓	✓	✓				70%	Low

The risk of bias was ranked as high when the study reached up to 49% of “yes” scores, moderate when the study reached from 50 to 69% of “yes” scores, and low when the study reached more than 70% of “yes” scores. ‘✓’ indicates yes, ‘✕’ indicates no and ‘?’ indicates unclear.

Back to article page

ISSN: 2731-4553

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com

BMC Primary Care

Contact us