Table 1.

Quality appraisal checklist (CASP)

	Appraisal criteria	Yes	Somewhat	No
1	Is this study based on qualitative, narrative research?a For mixed‐methods studies, is there sufficient emphasis on the qualitative component?	13	0	0
2	Are the study context and objectives clearly described? Study setting adequately described? Rationale for conducting the study stated and justified?	13	0	0
3	Is there evidence of researcher reflexivity? Researcher's role, potential bias and influence on respondents examined in formulation of questions, data collection and data analysis?	1	3	9
4	Is the recruitment strategy appropriate to the study aims? Researcher explained how study informants were selected? Discussion around recruitment, i.e. why some people chose not to take part?	1	12	0
5	Is the method of data collection clearly described and appropriate for the research question? Data collection method explicitly stated? Saturation of data discussed?	5	8	0
6	Is the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? Analytic process described in sufficient detail? If thematic analysis is used, is it clear how themes/categories were derived? Are contradictory data taken into account?	11	1	1
7	Are conclusions supported by sufficient evidence? Did the data provide sufficient depth, detail and richness? The researcher discussed credibility of their findings (triangulation, respondent validation, more than one analyst)?	8	4	1

^aScreening question, captured in inclusion criteria.