Skip to main content

Table 2 Quality assessment

From: ‘Groping through the fog’: a metasynthesis of women's experiences on VBAC (Vaginal birth after Caesarean section)

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*

  1. *Yes, no or not applicable