Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity | |
1. | Statement of which author/s conducted the interview or focus group* |
2. | List of the researchers’ credentials, e.g., PhD, MD* |
3. | Statement of their occupation at the time of the study* |
4. | Indication of the gender of the researcher(s)* |
5. | Statement of relevant experience or training that researcher(s) had* |
6. | Statement of any relationship established between participants and researchers prior to study start* |
7. | Statement of participant knowledge of the interviewer* |
8. | Evidence of self-awareness/insight in the characteristics reported about the interviewer/facilitator: e.g., assumptions, bias, reasons for or interest in the research topic* |
Domain 2: Scope and purpose* | |
9. | Link between research and existing knowledge demonstrated* |
10. | A clear aim for the study was stated* |
Domain 3: study design | |
11. | A clear methodological orientation was stated to underpin the study e.g. grounded theory, discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenology, content analysis* |
12. | Ethical committee approval granted* |
13. | Documentation of how autonomy, consent, confidentiality etc. were managed* |
14. | Description of how participants were selected: e.g. purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball* |
15. | Description of method of approach e.g. face-to-face, telephone, mail/email* |
16. | Sample size: number of participants in the study declared* |
17. | Number of people who refused to participate or dropped out given, with reasons* |
18. | Description of setting of data collection e.g. home, clinic, workplace* |
19. | Declaration of presence of non-participants, if applicable* |
20. | Description of important characteristics of the sample e.g., demographic data, date data collected* |
21. | Description of interview guide given e.g., questions, prompts, guides, and any pilot testing* |
22. | Number of repeat interviews given, if applicable* |
23. | Statements of audio/visual recording or not* |
24. | Statements of whether or not fields notes were used* |
25. | Duration of interviews or focus group given* |
26. | Evidence provided that the data reached saturation or discussion/rationale if they did not* |
27. | Statements of whether or not transcripts were returned to participants for comment and/or correction* |
Domain 4: analysis and findings | |
28. | Number of data coders given/evidence of more than one researcher involved* |
29. | Description provided of the coding tree/discussion of how coding system evolved* |
30. | Statement of whether themes were identified in advance or derived from the data* |
31. | Statement of manual analysis, or the software that was used to manage the data* |
32. | Statement of whether or not participants provided feedback on the findings* |
33. | Statements of whether or not deviant data were sought, if applicable* |
34. | Statement of whether or not researchers “dwelt with the data”, interrogating if for alternative explanations of phenomena* |
35. | Sufficient discussion of research processes such that others can follow ‘decision trail’* |
36. | Identified participant quotations (e.g. by participant number) presented to illustrate the themes/findings* |
37. | Consistency seen between the data presented in the findings* |
38. | Major themes clearly presented in the findings* |
39. | Description given of diverse cases or minor themes* |
40. | The results are presented with an essence (phenomenology), main interpretation (hermeneutics), theory/main concepts (grounded theory), main theme (content analysis)* |
41. | Evidence of systematic location and inclusion of literature and theory to contextualize findings* |
Domain 5: Relevance and transferability | |
42. | Clearly resonates with other knowledge and experience* |
43. | Provides new insights and increases understanding* |
44. | Limitations/weaknesses clearly outlined* |
45. | Further directions for investigation outlined* |