Study ID (author date) | 1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) | 2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) | 3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) | 4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? (Y/Can’t tell/ N) | 5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) | 6. Has the relationship between the researcher and participants been adequately considered? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) | 7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) | 8. Was the analysis sufficiently rigorous? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) | 9. Is there a clear statement of findings? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) | 10. How valuable is the research? |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gladman et al. 2007 [16] | Y | Y | Y | Can’t tell | Y | Can’t tell | Y | Y | Y | A valuable service evaluation assessing quality of care and coditions of care, which will be useful for replication of service. |
Iliffe et al. 2014a [14] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Can’t tell | Y | Y | Y | Adds substantial value in trying to replicate a US trial in the UK, and contributes valuable, detailed findings from process evaluation. |
Kosteniuk et al. 2014 [17] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Can’t tell | Y | Can’t tell | Y | Research contributes valuable findings from GPs views on coordinating interventions, but is lacking in detail and confined to rural settings. |
Minkman et al. 2009 [18] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Can’t tell | Y | Research is valuable in comparing variations of case management programmes, but needs more detail in findings. |
Van Mierlo et al. 2014 [19] | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Can’t tell | Y | Y | Y | Provides useful and novel insight into the barriers and facilitators to delivering coordinating interventions. |