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