Domain	Item #	COREQ Item	Response for This Study
1. Research Team and Reflexivity	1	Interviewer/facilitator: Which author(s)/researcher(s) conducted the interview or focus group?	Dr. Wisam Muhsen (WM), the Chief Investigator, conducted all semi-structured interviews. WM is a consultant neonatologist and PhD candidate with formal training in qualitative research.
	2	Credentials: “What were the researcher’s credentials (e.g., academic position, discipline, qualifications)?”	WM: Consultant neonatologist, PhD candidate in clinical research (University of Plymouth). Prof. Jos M. Latour (JML): Professor of Clinical Nursing, experienced in qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Ms. Ana Guillot-Lozano (AGL): Intercalating medical student and Master’s student in Clinical Research.
	3	Occupation: What was their occupation at the time of the study?	WM: Clinician-researcher (neonatologist) and PhD student. JML: Academic professor and researcher. AGL: Medical student and master’s degree student.
	4	Gender: Was the interviewer male or female?	Male.
	5	Experience and training: What experience or training did the interviewer have?	WM received formal training in qualitative methods and thematic analysis through the University of Plymouth’s Researcher Development Programme. He also has extensive clinical experience in neonatal care.
	6	Relationship established	The relationship was established prior to the study commencement
	7	Participants knowledge of the interviewer?	WM was the treating clinician for the infants whose parents were interviewed. Staff participants were colleagues within the same NICU. This dual role was acknowledged, and ethical safeguards were implemented (e.g., voluntary participation, assurance that responses would not affect clinical care).
	8	Interviewer characteristics	The interviewer is an experienced consultant neonatologist and clinical researcher who is interested in the investigating Bronchopulmonary dysplasia affecting newborn infants.
2. Study Design	9	Methodological orientation and theory?	Qualitative descriptive design using thematic analysis following Braun & Clarke’s (2006) [26] six-step framework.
	10	Sampling: How were participants sampled?	Purposive stratified sampling to ensure diversity in gender (parents) and professional background (medical vs. nursing staff).
	11	Method of approach?	Participants were approached face-to-face.
	12	Sample size: How many participants were in the study?	20 participants: 10 parents and 10 healthcare professionals.
	13	Non-participation: Were any participants not willing or able to participate?	Non-English speakers and families who experienced infant death were excluded. All approached eligible participants consented.
	14	Setting of data collection.	Semi-structured individual interviews. All interviews were conducted in the neonatal unit private room.
	15	Presence of non-participants.	Only the researcher and the participants were present in the interviews.
	16	Description of sample	Demographic data were collected e.g., gender, parent, medical or nursing background.
	17	Interview guide	There was an interview guide established with the questions included.
	18	Repeat interviews	There was no repeat interview.
	19	Audio/visual recording.	All interviews were audio-recorded.
	20	Field notes: Were field notes made during or after interviews?	Yes. The interviewer maintained field notes during and after each interview to capture non-verbal cues and contextual insights.
	21	Duration: What was the duration of interviews?	Interviews lasted 20–45 min.
	22	Data saturation: Was data saturation discussed?	Yes. Saturation was assessed iteratively.
	23	Transcripts returned: Were transcripts returned to participants for comment or correction?	Transcript-level member checking was conducted with 2 parents and 2 staff.
3. Analysis and Findings	24	Number of data coders: How many researchers coded the data?	Three researchers (WM, JML, AGL) collaboratively coded the data and developed themes.
	25	Description of the coding tree: Was a coding tree or framework described?	Initial codes were developed inductively. Subthemes and themes were refined through team discussion. The final thematic structure (4 themes, 11 subthemes) is presented in Table 2.
	26	Derivation of themes: Were themes derived inductively or deductively?	Inductively, from the raw data.
	27	Software: Was software used for data management or analysis?	NVivo 14 was used to manage and support thematic analysis.
	28	Participant checking	Transcript-level member checking was conducted with 2 parents and 2 staff. But no participant checking regarding the findings was performed.
	29	Participants’ quotes: Are participant quotations presented to illustrate themes?	Yes. Direct quotations from both parents and healthcare professionals are provided for each subtheme in Table 2 and throughout the Results section.
	30	Data and findings consistency: Do quotes match the findings?	Yes. Quotes are contextually aligned with the themes and subthemes they represent.
	31	Clarity of major themes.	Yes. Four main themes are clearly articulated and well-supported with relevant participant quotations and contextual interpretation.
	32	Clarity of minor or subthemes.	Yes. 11 subthemes are clearly described and illustrated through direct quotes and explanatory narrative.