Factors contributing to the recruitment and retention of rural pharmacist workforce: a systematic review

Terry, Daniel; Phan, Hoang; Peck, Blake; Hills, Danny; Kirschbaum, Mark; Bishop, Jaclyn; Obamiro, Kehinde; Hoang, Ha; Nguyen, Hoang; Baker, Ed; Schmitz, David

doi:10.1186/s12913-021-07072-1

BMC Health Services Research

Table 1 Methodological quality assessment of quantitative articles using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist - cross-sectional studies

From: Factors contributing to the recruitment and retention of rural pharmacist workforce: a systematic review

Author (Year), Country	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L	M	N	O	P	Q	R	S	T	Total	Quality of research paper
Glasser, 2006; US	+	+	-	+	-	-	+	+	+	+	+	+	-	-	-	+	+	+	-	-	12	Moderate
Fleming and Spark, 2011; Australia	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	-	+	+	+	+	+	-	+	18	High
Pearson et al., 2010; Canada	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	+	20	High
Woodend et al., 2004; Canada	+	+	-	+	+	+	-	+	+	+	+	+	-	-	+	+	+	+	-	-	14	High
Ling et al., 2018; New Zealand	+	+	+	+	+	+	-	+	u	+	+	+	-	-	+	+	+	+	-	+	15	High
Daniels et al., 2007; the US	+	+	+	+	+	+	-	+	+	+	+	+	-	-	+	+	+	+	-	+	16	High

Quality criteria: A: Were the aims/objectives of the study clear?, B: Was the study design appropriate for the stated aim(s)?, C: Was the sample size justified?, D: Was the target/reference population clearly defined? (Is it clear who the research was about?), E: Was the sample frame taken from an appropriate population base so that it closely represented the target/reference population under investigation?, F: Was the selection process likely to select subjects/participants that were representative of the target/reference population under investigation?, G: Were measures undertaken to address and categorise non-responders?, H: Were the risk factor and outcome variables measured appropriate to the aims of the study?, I: Were the risk factor and outcome variables measured correctly using instruments/measurements that had been trialled, piloted or published previously?, J: Is it clear what was used to determined statistical significance and/or precision estimates? (e.g. p-values, confidence intervals), K: Were the methods (including statistical methods) sufficiently described to enable them to be repeated?, L: Were the basic data adequately described?; M: Does the response rate raise concerns about non-response bias? (negative denotes no any attempt made to quantify the level of non-response by the researchers, and/or the response rate provided is likely to lead to non-response bias), N: If appropriate, was information about non-responders described?; O: Were the results internally consistent?; P: Were the results presented for all the analyses described in the methods?, Q: Were the authors’ discussions and conclusions justified by the results?; R: Were the limitations of the study discussed?, S: Were there any funding sources or conflicts of interest that may affect the authors’ interpretation of the results? (negative denotes no mention of any funding sources or conflicts of interest); T: Was ethical approval or consent of participants attained? (negative denotes no mention of any ethical approval or consent of participants attained); +: yes (criterion is met), −: no (criterion is not met), u: unknown if criterion is met, n/a: not applicable; High-quality paper: Scores ≥ 14, Moderate-quality paper: Scores 8-<14, Low-quality paper: Less than 8.

Back to article page

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com