Effectiveness of interventions by non-professional community-level workers or family caregivers to improve outcomes for physical impairments or disabilities in low resource settings: systematic review of task-sharing strategies

Table 2 Risk of bias for non-RCTs

Non RCTs (Cochrane risk of bias [ROBINS-I])
Study	Pre-intervention domains		At intervention domain	Post-intervention domains
Study	Bias due to confounding	Bias due to selection of participants	Bias due to classification of interventions	Bias due to deviations from intended interventions	Bias due to missing data	Bias in measurement of outcomes	Bias in selection of the reported results
Ru et al. 2017	Low risk	Serious risk	Moderate risk	No information	Moderate risk	Serious risk	Low risk
Chinchai et al. 2021	Serious risk	Critical risk	No information	Critical risk	Serious risk	Serious risk	Low risk
Chinchai et al. 2020	Serious risk	Critical risk	No information	No information	Serious risk	Serious risk	Serious risk
Chinchai et al. 2017	Serious risk	Critical risk	No information	No information	Serious risk	Serious risk	Serious risk
Balasubramanian et al. 2012	Serious risk	Critical risk	Critical risk	No information	No information	Serious risk	Serious risk

Low risk of bias: the study is comparable to a well-performed randomised trial with regard to this domain
Moderate risk of bias: the study is sound for a non-randomised study with regard to this domain but cannot be considered comparable to a well-performed randomised trial
Serious risk of bias: the study has some important problems
Critical risk of bias: the study is too problematic in this domain to provide any useful evidence on the effects of intervention
No information: on which to base a judgement about risk of bias for this domain

ISSN: 1478-4491