Table 1.

Pro Forma Criteria for Scoring Qualitative Articles

1. Does this article report on findings from qualitative research, and did that work involve both qualitative methods of data collection and data analysis?	YES/NO
2. Is the research relevant to the synthesis topic?	YES/NO
3. Aims	What are they?
Is there a clear statement of the aims of the research?
4. Methods	Types/s of methods:
Is a qualitative method appropriate?
5. Sampling	Inclusion and exclusion criteria:
5.1 Is it clear where the sample was selected from?	Characteristics:
5.2 Is it clear why this setting was chosen?	Age: Mean age: _____ SD: _____ Range: _____
5.3 Is it clear who was selected?	Gender: Women: _____Men: _____
5.4 Is the sample selection appropriate and justified?	Subjects: Patient _____ FDR _____ Other _____ Other family member _____
5.5 Is it clear how the sample was selected?
5.6 Is the sample size justified?	Disease: Cancer _____ HD _____ Diabetes _____
5.7 Is it clear how many people accepted or refused to take part in the research?	Ethnicity:
5.8 Is it clear why some participants chose not to take part?	Educational level:
5.9 Is adequate information given on the characteristics of the people in the sample?	Socioeconomic status:
6. Data collection	Describe setting:
6.1 Is it clear where the setting of the data collection was?
6.2 Is it clear why that setting was chosen?
6.3 Is it clear how the purpose of the research was explained and presented to the participants?
6.4 Is it clear how the data were collected?
6.5 Is it clear how the data were recorded?
6.6 Is it clear whether the methods were modified during the process, and if so, why?
6.7 Is it clear who collected the data?
7. Data analysis
7.1 Is it clear how the analysis was done?	Outline analysis:
7.2 Is it clear how the categories/themes were derived from the data?
7.3 Is there adequate description?
7.4 Have attempts been made to feed results back to respondents?
7.5 Have different sources of data about the same issue been compared where appropriate (triangulation)?
7.6 Was the analysis repeated by more than one researcher to ensure reliability?
8. Research partnership relations
8.1 Is it clear whether the researchers critically examined their own role, potential bias, and influence?
8.2 Has the relationship between researchers and participants been adequately considered?
9. Justification of data interpretation
9.1 Are sufficient data presented to support the descriptive findings?
9.2 Are quotes numbered/identified?
9.3 Do the researchers explain how the data presented in the article were selected from the original sample?
9.4 Do the researchers indicate links between data presented and their own interpretations of what the data contain?
9.5 Are negative, unusual, or contradictory cases presented?
9.6 Is there adequate discussion of the evidence both for and against the researchers’ interpretations?
10. Transferability
10.1 Is there conceptual and/or theoretical congruence between this and other work?
10.2 Are the findings of this study transferable to a wider population?
11. Findings
11.1 Is it possible to summarize the findings?
11.2 Were the findings explicit and easy to understand?
Total score (of 36 criteria)

FDR = first-degree relative; HD = heart disease.