Quality
Criteria Buijs et al
(2009) Cook et al (2000) Cooper el al (2008)
&
(2009)
Crowe et al (2010) Dean et al (2005) Keen et al (1999)
Research
Design Rationale for qualitative
research approach is clearly stated
The researchers described why qualitative methods were selected and defended the choice.
Aims stated
Research aim reported but qualitative design not discussed or defended.
Design discussed and
defended Rationale for
qualitative methods and for using
interpretive
phenomenological analysis is presented.
Clear description of aims; interviewing schedule discussed regarding changes over time; respondent validation.
Recruitment
Strategy Patients
interviewed by phone but not reported how they were approached to participate. No one refused. Some demographic details were supplied.
Convenience within RCT
Seven patients were selected from a specialist spinal clinic – not reported how they were
approached. Refusals not reported
Physiotherapy departments in one area of the UK NHS. 140 people were contacted by letter & returned reply slip if interested in participating.
Researcher telephoned respondents to confirm eligibility. No report of how sample size was determined. Sampling method may have introduced bias
80% recruited through response to CLBP article in free community health newsletter. 20%
through physiotherapy clinics. Respondents to the article opted in to the study by
contacting the researcher. Not reported how physiotherapists approached potential participants
Unusual recruitment method.
Physiotherapists approached directly by the research team. Convenience sample of patients approached by their own physiotherapist.
Clear description of sampling frame.
Account of how participants were chosen to best fulfil the research aims with a summary of their key characteristics.
Mentions those who chose not to participate but does not identify reasons.
Data Collection
One to one
telephone in-depth semi-structured interviews.
Methods not justified. No discussion how the topic guide was devised. Five extra interviews
conducted to search for new themes.
Saturation was
Semi-structured in- depth interviews which were audio- taped. Interview guide used & field notes kept. Data saturation not reported. Two
participants preferred to be interviewed in their own home – the rest attended a quiet treatment room in the physiotherapy
Semi-structured interviews conducted with each participant by first author in their home or in NHS premises. Interview schedule based on literature review but not reported. Interviews recorded & transcribed.
For one interview notes were taken. Data saturation not
Face to face semi- structured interview with prompts. Audio- taped then transcribed verbatim. Saturation achieved when it was identified that no more content was emerging.
Interview prompts – no explanation of their derivation
Audio-taped semi- structured interviews conducted with each participant by first author (KC) using an interview schedule based on literature review of the literature & 8 pilot interviews. Details of the topic guide are given. Data
saturation is not
In-depth interviews were conducted at intervals throughout the study by the same interviewer. There is no discussion of how the topic guide was devised for these interviews.
Data saturation is discussed.
reached at 20 interviews.
Interviews recorded &
transcribed.
department discussed. reported.
Researcher- Participant relationship
Not reported that researchers examined role and bias. Identity of interviewer not reported -does not allow relationship assessment
The researcher – interviewee relationships were not reported
The researcher – interviewee
relationships were not reported
Conducted by trained research assistant &
process supervised by one of the
investigators. No explicit report of relationships
The researcher has examined role in data collection but it is hard to assess their influence objectively without knowing the researcher’s
relationship to the participants.
Interviewing
participants more than once is suggested as a way to ensure validity.
Detail about
interviewer/ interviewee relationship insufficient.
Ethical
Issues Ethics approval obtained prior to study. The process of gaining
informed consent not described but authors state that a consent form was signed before interviews
commenced.
No report of ethics committee approval.
Informed consent was obtained from participants and their medical practitioners – method not
reported
All participants provided written informed
consent. Ethical approval for the study was granted by the NHS Grampian Research Ethics Committee. No report of explanatory statement.
Ethics committee approval was obtained prior to recruitment.
There is no report of how informed consent was obtained or hoe anonymity was ensured.
Ethics approval was obtained before the study commenced.
The process of gaining informed consent is not described in detail but the authors do state that a consent form was signed before the interview.
Approval from research ethics committee &
informed consent obtained. Payment made to participants but the implications of this on recruitment and ethics is not discussed.
Data
Analysis Very brief description – 2 independent co- examiners coded.
More thorough description required of analysis steps.
Quotes are too few
& contradictory data not taken into account
Constant comparison method &
Phenomenology.
Transcript lines numbered &
transcripts read several times by the researcher. Theme development reported. Well defined analysis steps reported. It seems that the
Comprehensive
description of analysis process. Indexing was conducted largely by the first author in collaboration with the two co-authors. All three authors independently applied the index to two full interview transcripts - proposed to guard against bias and enhance the
Coding was conducted manually by one very experienced
researcher and validated by 2 of the other researchers. The explicit steps were not reported.Rigour was discussed – not credibility or generalisability
Given the nature of the data collection the analysis was complex. Analysis would benefit from a more thorough description.
Generation of themes could be affected by the emphasis on identifying themes which represented
Data analysis in detail, especially the process of concept mapping and analyst characteristics.
Analysis was undertaken by a number of qualitative researchers whose identities & relationship with participants are not given.
analysis was conducted by only one researcher
trustworthiness of the
data. both groups.
Statement of
Findings Findings are clearly stated but would benefit from a greater link to the transcript data
Clear description of themes with relevant supporting quotes but quotes not linked to transcript
Themes explicitly reported with supporting quotes linked to de-identified participants
Themes not explicitly reported or well formulated. The quotes do not appear to be a good fit to the themes and they are not linked to the transcript. There is an adequate discussion and it is related to the research aims.
Clear description of themes with relevant supporting quotes but quotes come from a minority of participants. Quotes are clearly labelled.
Themes are presented along with quantitative data to support findings and correlations. These findings are explained in the text. Minimal
number of supportive quotes.
Value of
Research Research findings are explored with reference to literature.
Generalisation of results is limited due to lack of detail. No research
recommendations
Results and
discussion combined.
There was discussion in relation to the literature and the research aims.
Implications for practice were discussed but no research
recommendations
Linked to aims and literature and current practice and relevance discussed. Limitations are discussed and recommendations are made for further research.
The findings are considered in relation to current practice and literature. General recommendations made for further research
Reference to respondent
characteristics would have aided data interpretation and allowed the reader to assess
generalizability.
Research findings explored with reference to the literature.
Generalisation of results is limited due to lack of recruitment detail and male-only sample.
Authors acknowledge difficulty in interpreting results as participants were involved in a RCT.
Quality rating
Medium Medium Medium Low Medium Medium
