Skip to main content

Table 7 Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist

From: Do pharmacy practice standards effectively describe behaviour? Reviewing practice standards using a behavioural specificity framework

No. Item Guide questions/description . Page number reported on
Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity
 Personal Characteristics
  1. Interviewer/facilitator Which author/s conducted the interview or focus group? N/A Document review – the researchers background are described in the methods section on page 6
  2. Credentials What were the researcher’s credentials? E.g. PhD, MD N/A Document review
  3. Occupation What was their occupation at the time of the study? N/A Document review
  4. Gender Was the researcher male or female? N/A Document review
  5. Experience and training What experience or training did the researcher have? N/A Document review
 Relationship with participants
  6. Relationship established Was a relationship established prior to study commencement? N/A Document review
  7. Participant knowledge of the interviewer What did the participants know about the researcher? e.g. personal goals, reasons for doing the research N/A Document review
  8. Interviewer characteristics What characteristics were reported about the interviewer/facilitator? e.g. Bias, assumptions, reasons and interests in the research topic N/A Document review
Domain 2: study design
 Theoretical framework
  9. Methodological orientation and Theory What methodological orientation was stated to underpin the study? e.g. grounded theory, discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenology, content analysis Directed content analysis – methods sections, page 6
 Participant selection
  10. Sampling How were participants selected? e.g. purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball N/A Document Review. Rationale for the choice of document analysis can be found in the methods section, page 6
  11. Method of approach How were participants approached? e.g. face-to-face, telephone, mail, email N/A Document Review.
  12. Sample size How many participants were in the study? N/A Document Review.
  13. Non-participation How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons? N/A Document Review.
 Setting
  14. Setting of data collection Where was the data collected? e.g. home, clinic, workplace N/A Document Review.
  15. Presence of non-participants Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers? N/A Document Review.
  16. Description of sample What are the important characteristics of the sample? e.g. demographic data, date N/A Document Review.
 Data collection
  17. Interview guide Were questions, prompts, guides provided by the authors? Was it pilot tested? N/A Document Review.
  18. Repeat interviews Were repeat interviews carried out? If yes, how many? N/A Document Review.
  19. Audio/visual recording   
  20. Field notes Were field notes made during and/or after the interview or focus group? N/A Document Review. The researchers documented decisions during development of the code book.
  21. Duration What was the duration of the interviews or focus group? N/A Document Review.
  22. Data saturation Was data saturation discussed? N/A Document Review.
  23. Transcripts returned Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/or correction? N/A Document Review.
Domain 3: analysis and findings
 Data analysis
  24. Number of data coders How many data coders coded the data? Second researcher reviewed 20% of coding for agreement, see methods page 6–7
  25. Description of the coding tree Did authors provide a description of the coding tree? Development of code book provided in methods, page 6–7
Code book can be viewed in Table 1
  26. Derivation of themes Were themes identified in advance or derived from the data? Directed content analysis – methods sections, page 6
  27. Software What software, if applicable, was used to manage the data? Microsoft Excel was used to store data and analysis.
  28. Participant checking Did participants provide feedback on the findings? N/A Document Review
 Reporting
  29. Quotations presented Were participant quotations presented to illustrate the themes / findings? Was each quotation identified? e.g. participant number N/A Document Review. Examples of analysis and potential improvements to statements can be viewed in Table 6
  30. Data and findings consistent Was there consistency between the data presented and the findings? Yes.
  31. Clarity of major themes Were major themes clearly presented in the findings? Yes. See results section on page 7–9
  32. Clarity of minor themes Is there a description of diverse cases or discussion of minor themes? N/A Document Review