Table 1

Methodological quality assessment of the 20 studies addressing the competences of multiple HPRs (nurses, physical therapists and occupational therapists)

Type of studyQuality score of papers used*Research questions addressed
 Studies describing comprehensive sets of competences for multiple HPR
 Erwin et al22 2018Qualitative study
(face-to-face groups)
Medium (9)R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7
 Erwin et al10 2017Qualitative study
(Delphi survey)
High (12)R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R10, R11, R13
 Health Education England,
 NHS England Medical Directorate and Skills for Health3 2018
Descriptive framework informed by Delphi project and focus groups of patientsHigh (12)R1b, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13
 Hurkmans et al25 2013Qualitative study
(consensus meetings, face-to-face group and phone conference)
Low (6)R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R11, R12, R13
 Moe et al4 2018Survey-based studyMedium (9)R1a, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R10, R11
Studies describing specific roles, knowledge, attitudes, skills or educational needs of multiple HPRs
 Bergsten et al18 2011Qualitative study
(interviews and ground theory)
Medium (8)R7
 Brodin et al19 2015Questionnaire-based studyHigh (10)R6, R10
 Darlow et al20 2012Systemic reviewModerate †R1b
 Dures et al21 2014Qualitative study
(semistructured interviews)
High (12)R9, R10, R11
 Helland et al23 2013Quantitative study (questionnaire)83.3%‡R2, R7
 Hurkmans et al24 2011Questionnaire-based studyHigh (10)R10
 Larkin et al26 2017Qualitative study (interviews)High (12)R6, R10
 Lillie et al27 2013Focus groups and online survey-based studyLow (5)R1, R3, R4, R7, R9, R10
 Lundon et al28 2009Qualitative and quantitative arms (survey and interviews)62.5%‡R1, R3, R4, R13
 Maycock29 1991Opinion paperNA§R1b, R3, R7
 Taal et al30 2006ReviewCritically low†R11
 Vliet Vlieland et al31 2016Qualitative study (structured interviews and online survey)High (11)R1a, R2, R4, R5
 Willems et al32 2015Observational (online survey)High (11)R1a, R10
 Woolf et al33 2007Descriptive study – recommendationsLow (6)R3, R4, R7, R13
 Zangi et al11 2015RecommendationsHigh (10)R7, R12
  • The research questions that are relevant to the studies are recorded in the last column.

  • *Scoring of qualitative studies was performed using a modified version of the criteria presented in Harden et al.15 Quality is being scored as low, medium or high. Score values (range: 1–12) are reported in brackets.

  • †Scoring of reviews was performed using the AMSTAR criteria.16 Quality is being scored as critically low, low, moderate and high.

  • ‡MMAT score was used for the quality assessment for quantitative studies or for studies of mixed methods (Pluye et al.17 Int J Nurs Stud, 2009;46:529–546). The final score was expressed as a percentage [(number of ‘presence’ responses divided by the number of ‘relevant criteria’) × 100].

  • §This source has not been scored as this is an opinion paper.

  • HPRs, health professionals in rheumatology; R, research question.