Methodological quality assessment of the 20 studies addressing the competences of multiple HPRs (nurses, physical therapists and occupational therapists)
| Authors Year | Type of study | Quality score of papers used* | Research questions addressed |
| Studies describing comprehensive sets of competences for multiple HPR | |||
| Erwin et al22 2018 | Qualitative study (face-to-face groups) | Medium (9) | R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 |
| Erwin et al10 2017 | Qualitative 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 patients | High (12) | R1b, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13 |
| Hurkmans et al25 2013 | Qualitative 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 2018 | Survey-based study | Medium (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 2011 | Qualitative study (interviews and ground theory) | Medium (8) | R7 |
| Brodin et al19 2015 | Questionnaire-based study | High (10) | R6, R10 |
| Darlow et al20 2012 | Systemic review | Moderate † | R1b |
| Dures et al21 2014 | Qualitative study (semistructured interviews) | High (12) | R9, R10, R11 |
| Helland et al23 2013 | Quantitative study (questionnaire) | 83.3%‡ | R2, R7 |
| Hurkmans et al24 2011 | Questionnaire-based study | High (10) | R10 |
| Larkin et al26 2017 | Qualitative study (interviews) | High (12) | R6, R10 |
| Lillie et al27 2013 | Focus groups and online survey-based study | Low (5) | R1, R3, R4, R7, R9, R10 |
| Lundon et al28 2009 | Qualitative and quantitative arms (survey and interviews) | 62.5%‡ | R1, R3, R4, R13 |
| Maycock29 1991 | Opinion paper | NA§ | R1b, R3, R7 |
| Taal et al30 2006 | Review | Critically low† | R11 |
| Vliet Vlieland et al31 2016 | Qualitative study (structured interviews and online survey) | High (11) | R1a, R2, R4, R5 |
| Willems et al32 2015 | Observational (online survey) | High (11) | R1a, R10 |
| Woolf et al33 2007 | Descriptive study – recommendations | Low (6) | R3, R4, R7, R13 |
| Zangi et al11 2015 | Recommendations | High (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.