Skip to main content

Table 4 Methodological quality ratings using CASP criteria

From: A systematic review of interventions that impact alcohol and other drug-related harms in licensed entertainment settings and outdoor music festivals

1st Author, year of study

CASP criterion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Total score

Quality rating

Brown et al. 2011 [57]

2

2

2

1

2

1

1

0

2

1

14

Fair

Carvalho et al. 2014 [59]

2

1

1

2

2

0

0

1

2

1

12

Fair

Farrimond et al. 2018 [138]

1

2

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

10

Fair

Forsyth et al. 2012 [139]

2

2

2

1

2

0

1

0

2

2

14

Fair

Hughes et al. 2018 [140]

2

1

1

2

2

0

1

0

2

2

13

Fair

Kirby et al. 2011 [92]

2

1

1

1

1

0

0

0

2

1

9

Poor

Malins 2019 [17]

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

18

Strong

Miller et al. 2020 [141]

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

16

Strong

Palk et al. 2012 [116]

1

2

2

1

2

0

0

1

1

2

12

Fair

Randerson et al. 2018 [120]

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

4

Poor

Ward et al. 2018 [32]

2

1

1

1

2

0

1

1

2

1

12

Fair

Zawisza et al. 2020 [136]

2

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

1

1

7

Poor

  1. Note. Criteria include: 1) clear statement of aims; 2) appropriateness of qualitative methodology; 3) appropriateness of research design; 4) appropriateness of recruitment strategy; 5) appropriateness of data collection; 6) consideration of relationship between researcher and participants; 7) consideration of ethical issues; 8) rigor of analysis; 9) clear statement of findings; and 10) value of research. Scores included: “yes” = 2; “no” = 0 and “can’t tell” = 1. Overall quality ratings included: “good” (≥ 8); “fair” (5–7) or “poor” (< 5) (Casp 2013)
Back to article page

Harm Reduction Journal

ISSN: 1477-7517