“…Appraisal of the studies with quantitative method ( Table 3 ) components demonstrated that one received a strong quality rating; seven a moderate quality rating; and 10 a weak quality rating. Weak components included selection bias ( Knudsen et al, 2017 ; Shrestha et al, 2018 ), research design ( Bachhuber et al, 2018 ; Chavis et al, 2020 ; Cohn et al, 2016 ; Jessop et al, 2017 ; Knudsen et al, 2017 ; Saag et al, 2018 ; Saberi et al, 2020 ; Shrestha & Copenhaver, 2018 ; Simeone et al, 2017 ; Tofighi et al, 2019 ), confounders ( Bachhuber et al, 2018 ; Barocas et al, 2019 ; Korthius et al, 2017 ; Shrestha & Copenhaver, 2018 ; Tofighi et al, 2019 ), blinding ( Aggarwal et al, 2019 ; Barocas et al, 2019 ; Chavis et al, 2020 ; Cohn et al, 2016 ; Jessop et al, 2017 ; Knudsen et al, 2017 ; Korthius et al, 2017 ; Saberi et al, 2020 ), data collection ( Chavis et al, 2020 ; Cohn et al, 2016 ; Jessop et al, 2017 ; Knudsen et al, 2017 ; Korthius et al, 2017 ; Riggins et al, 2017 ; Saberi et al, 2020 ; Tofighi et al, 2019 ), and dropouts ( Gardner et al, 2016 ; Irvine et al, 2017 ). Appraisal of the studies with qualitative method ( Table 4 ) components demonstrated that all three qualitative studies’ results were valid ( Arnold et al, 2018 ; Oldfield et al, 2019a ; ...…”