kriteria tong
DESCRIPTION
Kriteria TongTRANSCRIPT
Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist
Barriers to medicine use in secondary schools: a qualitative study
Developed from:Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2007. Volume 19,Number 6: pp. 349 – 357
No. ItemGuide questions/description
Domain 1: Research
team and reflexivity
Personal Characteristics
1. Inter viewer/facilitatorWhich author/s conducted the inter viewJoseph Cowley was
or focus group?the facilitator – he is
not an author as he did
not contribute to the
paper.2. CredentialsWhat were the researcher’s credentials?BSc, MSc
E.g. PhD, MD
3. OccupationWhat was their occupation at the time of
Research
the study?associate/PhD student4. GenderWas the researcher male or female?Male5. Experience and trainingWhat experience or training did theThe researcher
researcher have?gathered data in a
focus group study at
Strathclyde University
prior to this study in
2009. He had an MSc.
He had also collected
data on community
based health research
projects from 2001 to
2006 including the
NHS Lanarkshire
“Braveheart” Project”Relationship with
participants
6. RelationshipWas a relationship established prior toNoestablishedstudy commencement?
7. Participant knowledgeWhat did the participants know aboutParticipants knew thatof the interviewerthe researcher? e.g. personal goals,the researcher worked
reasons for doing the researchat the University of
Strathclyde in the
Pharmacy Department.8. InterviewerWhat characteristics were reportedParticipants know thecharacteristicsabout the inter viewer/facilitator? e.g.researcher worked in a
Bias, assumptions, reasons andPharmacy Department.
interests in the research topic
Domain 2: study design
Theoretical framework
9. MethodologicalWhat methodological orientation wasInductive thematicorientation and Theorystated to underpin the study? e.g.analysis.
grounded theory, discourse analysis,
ethnography, phenomenology, content
analysis
Participant selection
10. SamplingHow were participants selected? e.g.Purposive/convenience
purposive, convenience, consecutive,– typical users and non
snowballusers of pharmacy
services were selected
on the basis of
demographic
characteristics i.e.
mothers with young
children (from the UK
and immigrants) men
and older people.11. Method of approachHow were participants approached? e.g.Participants were
face-to-face, telephone, mail, emailrecruited through non-
pharmacy or national
health related
voluntary and charity
organisations.12. Sample sizeHow many participants were in the26
study?
13. Non-participation
How many people refused to participateNot applicable –
or dropped out? Reasons?participation was
voluntary.Setting
14. Setting of dataWhere was the data collected? e.g.Localities that werecollectionhome, clinic, workplaceconvenient to
participants in their
community for example
in a community hall15. Presence of non-Was anyone else present besides theNo.participantsparticipants and researchers?
16. Description of sampleWhat are the important characteristics ofGender, age and
the sample? e.g. demographic data,parental status.
date
Data collection
17. Interview guideWere questions, prompts, guidesA topic guide was
provided by the authors? Was it pilot
devised by the
tested?research team and
initial interviews acted
as a pilot.18.Repeat interviewsWere repeat inter views carried out? IfNo.
yes, how many?
19.Audio/visual recordingDid the research use audio or visualData were audio
recording to collect the data?recorded using a digital
recorder.20.Field notesWere field notes made during and/orYes.
after the inter view or focus group?
21.DurationWhat was the duration of the inter viewsOn average 53
or focus group?minutes.22.Data saturationWas data saturation discussed?Yes23.
Transcripts returnedWere transcripts returned to participantsNo
for comment and/or correction?
Domain 3: analysis and
findings
Data analysis
24.Number of dataHow many data coders coded the data?3coders
Lesley MacGregor,
Wendy Gidman.25.Description of theDid authors provide a description of theNot explicitly.coding treecoding tree?
26.Derivation of themesWere themes identified in advance orThis was an
derived from the data?exploratory study.
Analysis was inductive
themes were derived
from the data.27.SoftwareWhat software, if applicable, was usedData were transcribed
to manage the data?verbatim into word
documents by
professional
transcribers. Themes
were groups by cutting
and pasting between
documents.28.Participant checkingDid participants provide feedback on theNo
findings?
Reporting
29.Quotations presentedWere participant quotations presented toYes, identified by
illustrate the themes/findings? Was eachparticipant number
quotation identified? e.g. participant
number
30.Data and findingsWas there consistency between the dataYesconsistentpresented and the fi ndings?
31.Clarity of majorWere major themes clearly presented inYesthemesthe findings?
32.Clarity of minorIs there a description of diverse cases orYes – word countthemesdiscussion of minor themes?restrictions did not
permit more extensive
theme discussion.
Once you have completed this checklist, please save a copy and upload it as part of your submission. When requested to do so as part of the upload process,please select the file type: Checklist. You will NOT be able to proceed with submission unless the checklist has been uploaded. Please DO NOT include thischecklist as part of the main manuscript document. It must be uploaded as a separate file.