Skip to main content

Table 3 CASP Qualitative checklist

From: Stakeholders perspectives on the key components of community-based interventions coordinating care in dementia: a qualitative systematic review

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.