Skip to main content

Table 5 Quality assessment – Quantitative or mixed-methods tool – Those who remain behind

From: Transnational social networks, health, and care: a systematic narrative literature review

Reference
Number
Study (n = 10) Clear, explicit and appropriate aim Clearly described context Sampling approach appropriate and non-biased Sample size adequate Data generation tools well described and appropriate Analysis approach well described and appropriate Findings adequately supported by data (not over-stated) Consideration of limitations, bias and generalizability evident Key concepts relating to migration/ ethnicity are explicit Summary assessment
[41] Battaglia, 2015 + + + + + + + + ***
[42] Beine, Docquier and Schiff, 2013 + + + + + **
[43] Creighton, Goldman, Teruel and Rubalcava, 2011 + + + + + + + + + ***
[44] De, 2013 + + + + + + + + ***
[45] Diabate and Mesplé-Somps, 2019 + + + + + + + ***
[46] Fargues, 2011 + + + *
[47] Frank, 2005 + + + + + + + + ***
[48] Lindstrom and Muñoz-Franco, 2005 + + + + + + + ***
[49] Lindstrom and Muñoz-Franco, 2006 + + + + + + + ***
[50] Roosen and Siegel, 2018 + + + + + + + ***
  1. Assessment: + (sufficient) and – (insufficient)
  2. Summary assessment: *Low (< 4 components assessed as sufficient), **Moderate (4–6 components assessed as sufficient), and ***Good (7–9 components assessed as sufficient)