“…Notably, few studies justified sample size or utilized effect sizes (n = 4; 25%), 21,29,30,35 and few statistically considered potential confounding variables in analyses (n = 4; 25%), 21,23,26,29 though six studies utilized qualitative data and thematic analyses, and thus statistical assessment of confounding variables was rated NA. 22,25,28,30,33,35 Based on the results of this quality assessment, 50% of included studies were rated as "good" quality (n = 8) 20,21,23,24,26,27,29,31 and 50% of included studies were rated as "fair" quality (n = 8). 22,25,28,30,[32][33][34][35] No studies were excluded from the current literature reviewed based on the quality assessment.…”