SDOH AND SOCIAL CHANGE
janejayson
AppendixE2_SingleStudyEvidenceAppraisalTool_2025FINAL_FORM.docx
Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model and Guidelines
Appendix E2
Single Study Evidence Appraisal Tool
|
Section I: Level of Support for Practice Change |
|
Complete the decision tree below to determine the level of support for practice change. |
Is this a report of a single study?
Do not use this tool, use Appendix D: Appraisal Tool Selection Algorithm to determine the correct appraisal tool.
YES
NO
Does the evidence report a formal study design?
YES
Did the study team implement an intervention?
Moderate support for decision-making
YES
Was there an explicitly stated and analyzed control group?
NO
YES
*For definitions of terms in bold print see Appendix F: Evidence Terminology and Considerations Guide
Strong support for decision-making
|
Fill in this data collection table after completing the quality assessment below (see Instructions in Appendix G2: Individual Evidence Summary Tool for more information) |
||||||||
|
Article Number |
Author, date, title |
Type of evidence |
Population, size, and setting |
Intervention |
Findings that help answer the EBP question |
Measures used |
Limitations |
Level of support for decision-making |
| Enter # | Enter text | Enter text | Enter text | Enter text | Enter text | Enter text | Enter text | Enter text |
Determine if the research is qualitative (Section IIA), quantitative (Section IIB), or mixed methods (Section IIC) and complete the corresponding quality appraisal checklist.
|
Discussion |
||||
|
1. Does the discussion match what is reported in the results section? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Do the authors examine what they found and compare it to other literature on the topic? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
3. Are limitations included with an explanation of how they were handled? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
4. Do the authors provide implications of their study for practice and future investigation? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
|
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
N/A |
|
General |
||||
|
1. Is all the information in the paper congruent (consistent throughout the aims, methods, results, and discussion sections)? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Are funding and conflicts of interest addressed? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Consider all of your responses above. Do you think the quality of this article is adequate to provide dependable information to answer your EBP question? |
☐Yes Include, complete data collection table on page 1 |
|||
|
|
☐No Exclude, set aside, and note exclusion for tracking |
|||
|
Section IIC: Mixed Methods Evidence |
||||
|
|
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
N/A |
|
Background/Introduction |
||||
|
1. Is a logical background and rationale for the review explained using current literature? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Is the purpose/objective of the study clear? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Methods |
||||
|
1. Is the study design and mixed methods approach clearly stated with an explanation of why it was chosen? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Is the study setting clearly described (including location, dates, and other important details) to enhance generalizability? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
3. Is the process for recruiting participants ( sampling) explained clearly and does it match with the study aim(s)? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
4. Do eligibility criteria (rules for who can join the study) make sense and are they easy to understand? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
5. Is the sample size adequate… |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
a) For the qualitative portion (this includes evidence of data saturation)? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
b) For the quantitative portion (this includes adequate power, a calculation, or other explanation for how the authors decided how many participants or observations to include)? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
6. Did the authors clearly state what they wanted to measure or describe? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
7. Did the authors address reflexivity (how their background or experience might have affected the study)? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
8. If applicable, are the intervention(s) clearly described? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
9. Are the data collection methods clear and appropriate (this includes how they gathered and recorded the information)? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
|
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
N/A |
|
a) If applicable, were all the tools reliable? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
b) If applicable, were all the tools valid? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
10. In the qualitative section, are data processing methods clear and appropriate (this includes how the data was transcribed and checked) to enhance credibility? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
11. Are the methods to analyze the data well explained… |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
a) For the qualitative section (this includes coding and generation of themes)? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
b) For the quantitative section (this includes what computer programs they used, how they made calculations, or anything else they did to explore the data)? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
12. If there was randomization, |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
a) Was true randomization used to put people in the control and intervention groups? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
b) Other than the intervention being studied, were the intervention and control groups treated similarly? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
13. Do the authors truly use and integrate both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to collect and analyze data? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
14. Is there information on the ethical review provided? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
15. In addition to the items above, did the authors answer all of your questions about how they conducted their study? [include notes about additional concerns] |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Results |
||||
|
1. Do the findings make sense and are they easy to understand? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Are characteristics of the participants provided (this may include demographics or other important details about the participants or things being studied)? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
3. If applicable, was the survey response rate provided? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
4. If applicable, are attrition rates provided (this includes how many people remained with the study at each stage)? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
5. Is data provided for each item the authors stated they wanted to measure or describe? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
6. In the qualitative section, do the authors provide enough quotations, detailed observations, or other proof to support their findings? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
7. In the quantitative section, are statistics shown clearly? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
8. If applicable, are the baseline characteristics of the intervention and control groups similar? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
9. Are any statistics shown clearly? |
☐ | ☐ |
☐ |
☐ |
|
|
Yes |
No |
Unclear |
N/A |
|
Discussion |
||||
|
1. Does the discussion match what is reported in the results section? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Do the authors fully integrate the qualitative and quantitative data to create a deeper understanding? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
3. Do the authors examine what they found and compare it to other literature on the topic? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
4. Are limitations included with an explanation of how they were handled? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
5. Do the authors provide implications of their study for practice and future investigation? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
General |
||||
|
1. Is all the information in the paper congruent (consistent throughout the aims, methods, results, and discussion sections)? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
2. Are funding and conflicts of interest addressed? |
☐ | ☐ | ☐ | ☐ |
|
Consider all of your responses above. Do you think the quality of this article is adequate to provide dependable information to answer your EBP question? |
☐Yes Include, complete data collection table on page 1 |
|||
|
|
☐No Exclude, set aside, and note exclusion for tracking |
© 2025 Johns Hopkins Health System 2
