Homelessness and the use of Emergency Department as a source of healthcare: a systematic review

Table 2 Risk of bias assessment using BMJ quality assessment for prevalence studies

		Item 1	Item 2	Item 3	Item 4	Item 6	Item 7	Item 8	Item 9	Item 10
Tadros et al. 2016 [15]	USA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Oates et al. 2009 [16]	USA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Holtyn et al. 2017 [17]	USA	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	3
Brown et al. 2010 [18]	UK	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Cheung et al. 2015 [19]	Canada	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	2
Brown et al. 2013 [20]	USA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Raven et al. 2017 [21]	USA	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	4
Ku et al. 2010 [22]	USA	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	2
Feldman et al. 2017 [23]	USA	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	2
Jackson et al. 2019 [24]	USA	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	4
Lee et al. 2019 [25]	Australia	1	0	1	1	0	1	1	0	5
Tsai et al. 2013 (a) [26]	USA	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Rodriguez et al. 2009 [27]	USA	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	3
Lin et al. 2015 [28]	USA	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2
Mackelprang et al. 2014 [29]	USA	1	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	4
Doran et al. 2016 [30]	USA	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	2
Moore et al. 2011 [31]	Australia	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Hammig et al. 2014 [32]	USA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Mackelprang et al. 2015 [33]	USA	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2
Feldman et al. 2018 [34]	USA	1	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	2
Tsai et al. 2013 (b) [35]	USA	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	1
Moulin et al. 2018 [36]	USA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Cheallaigh et al. 2017 [37]	Ireland	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1
Yeniocak et al. 2017 [38]	Turkey	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2
Lloyd et al. 2017 [39]	Australia	1	0	0	0	1	1	0	1	4
Lombardi et al. 2019 [40]	USA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Hastings et al. 2013 [41]	USA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Lam et al. 2016 [42]	USA	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Stenius-Ayoade. 2017 [43]	Finland	1	0		0	0	0	0	1	2
Post et al. 2013 [44]	USA	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	3
Moore et al. 2012 [45]	Australia	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1
Doran et al. 2018 [46]	USA	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	2
Doran et al. 2013 [47]	USA	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Ku et al. 2014 [48]	USA	1	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	3
Coe et al. 2015 [49]	USA	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	0	2
Amato et al. 2018 [50]	USA	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2

Item 1: Was the study’s target population a close representation of the national population in relation to relevant variables, e.g. age, sex, occupation? Item 2: Was the sampling frame a true or close representation of the target population? Item 3: Was some form of random selection used to select the sample, or was a census undertaken? Item 4: Was the likelihood of non-response bias minimal? Item 5: Were data collected directly from the subjects (as opposed to a proxy)? Item 6: Was an acceptable case definition used in the study? Item 7: Was the study instrument that measured the parameter of interest (e.g. prevalence of low back pain) shown to have reliability and validity (if necessary)? Item 8: Was the same mode of data collection used for all subjects? Item 9: Were the numerator(s) and denominator(s) for the parameter of interest appropriate Item 10: Summary on the overall risk of study bias

ISSN: 1865-1380