Table 1 COREQ 32 checklist
No | Item | Guide questions/description | Response |
|---|---|---|---|
Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity | |||
Personal characteristics | |||
1. | Interviewer/facilitator | Which author/s conducted the interview or focus group? | Mariyana Schoultz Clinical Academic Fellow at University of Stirling PhD Candidate (conducted focus groups). |
2. | Credentials | What were the researcher’s credentials? e.g. PhD, MD | Leah Macaden Lecturer University of Stirling PhD. |
3. | Occupation | What was their occupation at the time of the study? | Gill Hubbard Reader University of Stirling PhD. |
4. | Gender | Was the researcher male or female? | All 3 researchers are female. |
5. | Experience and training | What experience or training did the researcher have? | MS had a qualitative research training through the PhD and have previously conducted qualitative research. |
LM and GH are both qualitative researchers. | |||
Relationship with participants | |||
6. | Relationship established | Was a relationship established prior to study commencement? | The participants were not acquainted to the researchers prior to the study commencements. |
7. | Participant knowledge of the interviewer | What did the participants know about the researcher? e.g. personal goals, reasons for doing the research | The participants knew that the intent of the evaluation was to identify benefits and barriers encountered in order to make improvements to the MBCT programme. Interviewees knew that the researchers were affiliated with University of Stirling. |
8. | Interviewer characteristics | What characteristics were reported about the interviewer/facilitator? e.g. Bias, assumptions, reasons and interests in the research topic | |
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 | We used a thematic analysis approach (see [45]). |
Participant selection | |||
10. | Sampling | How were participants selected? e.g. purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball | Participants were recruited consecutively. |
11. | Method of approach | How were participants approached? e.g. face-to-face, telephone, mail, email | Participants were approached by mail and recruited by face-to-face. |
12. | Sample size | How many participants were in the study? | 18 in total. |
13. | Non-participation | How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons? | 6 participants that were invited for the focus groups did not respond. |
Setting | |||
14. | Setting of data collection | Where was the data collected? e.g. home, clinic, workplace | Focus groups were conducted at University Building. |
15. | Presence of non-participants | Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers? | No. |
16. | Description of sample | What are the important characteristics of the sample? e.g. demographic data, date | Age, gender, level of education, income, marital status and disease type were included in Table 2 reported in Table 4 of the manuscript. |
Data collection | |||
17. | Interview guide | Were questions, prompts, guides provided by the authors? Was it pilot tested? | Prompts and questions were provided by the author. The guides were not tested in a pilot study, but were discussed. |
18. | Repeat interviews | Were repeat interviews carried out? If yes, how many? | No. |
19. | Audio/visual recording | Did the research use audio or visual recording to collect the data? | Focus groups was audio-recorded and transcribed prior to analysis. |
20. | Field notes | Were field notes made during and/or after the interview or focus group? | No. |
21. | Duration | What was the duration of the interviews or focus group? | Focus groups: 1 hour approx. |
22. | Data saturation | Was data saturation discussed? | Yes—data collection from participants ended when saturation was achieved. |
23. | Transcripts returned | Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/or correction? | No. Transcripts were reviewed by researchers who listened to the audio recordings to verify their accuracy. |
Domain 3: Analysis and findings | |||
Data analysis | |||
24. | Number of data coders | How many data coders coded the data? | 2 researchers (MS and LM). |
25. | Description of the coding tree | Did authors provide a description of the coding tree? | No. However, initial coding was informed by the interview guides but codes were continually refined as simultaneous data collection & analysis provided new insights. Codes were grouped into similar descriptive categories. The final themes were agreed upon by the analysis team through consensus. |
26. | Derivation of themes | Were themes identified in advance or derived from the data? | |
27. | Software | What software, if applicable, was used to manage the data? | No software was used. |
28. | Participant checking | Did participants provide feedback on the findings? | No. |
Reporting | |||
29. | Quotations presented | Were participant quotations presented to illustrate the themes/findings? Was each quotation identified? e.g. participant number | Yes. |
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. |
32. | Clarity of minor themes | Is there a description of diverse cases or discussion of minor themes? | Yes. |