Table 2.
The consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ)
| Guide questions/description | Remarks | Page no. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity | |||
| a). Personal Characteristics | |||
| 1. Interviewer/ facilitator | Which author/s conducted the interview or focus group? | Three authors (PSML, CJN and JN) conducted the in-depth interviews, while the focus group discussions were conducted by PSML and CJN. | 3 |
| 2. Credentials | What were the researcher’s credentials? E.g. PhD, MD | The researchers’ credentials are as follows: JN: B Pharm PSML: PhD CJN: PhD LE: PhD |
12 |
| 3. Occupation | What was their occupation at the time of the study? | The researchers’ occupations are as follows: JN: a postgraduate student/pharmacist PSML: academic / pharmacist CJN: academic / family physician LE: academic with Director of Research responsibilities. |
12 |
| 4. Gender | Was the researcher male or female? | The researchers’ gender are as follows: JN: female PSML: female CJN: male LE: female |
12 |
| 5. Experience and training | What experience or training did the researcher have? | JN attended a workshop on “how to conduct qualitative research” and “how to use NViVo software to analyse the data”. PSLM, CJN and LE are experienced researchers in qualitative studies and have collectively published numerous qualitative research articles. |
12 |
| b). Relationship with participants | |||
| 6. Relationship established | Was a relationship established prior to study commencement? | Only for the purposes of this research. | n/a |
| 7. Participant knowledge of the interviewer | What did the participants know about the researcher? e.g. personal goals, reasons for doing the research | Some of the participants knew JN personally. The remaining participants did not know any of the researchers. However, all participants knew that the interview was for research purposes. | n/a |
| 8. Interviewer characteristics | What characteristics were reported about the interviewer/facilitator? e.g. Bias, assumptions, reasons and interests in the research topic | The characteristics of each author have been reported in the section titled ‘Authors’ Information’. | 12 |
| Domain 2: study design | |||
| a). Theoretical framework | |||
| 9. Methodological orientation and Theory | What methodological orientation was stated to underpin the study? e.g. grounded theory, discourse analysis etc | Interpretative descriptive and thematic analysis were applied. | 2 |
| b). Participant selection | |||
| 11. Method of approach | How were participants approached? e.g. face-to-face, telephone, mail, email | An invitation was posted on online social media (LinkedIn and Facebook). For those who expressed interest to participate, an email was then sent to confirm their interest, and to request their telephone number. The participant information sheet explaining the purpose of the study was then emailed to these potential participants. | 3 |
| 12. Sample size | How many participants were in the study? | 19 pharmacists were recruited. | 4 |
| 13. Non-participation | How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons? | Out of the 29 pharmacists approached, only 19 pharmacists completed the interviews (IDI = 9, FGD = 10). The reason for not participating were that they were busy. | 4 |
| c). Setting | |||
| 14. Setting of data collection | Where was the data collected? e.g. home, clinic, workplace | Data were collected at the pharmacists’ home or their workplace. Focus group discussions were conducted in a private meeting room located within a condominium residential area. | 3 |
| 15. Presence of non-participants | Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers? | No-one else was present besides the participants and the researchers. | n/a |
| 16. Description of sample | What are the important characteristics of the sample? e.g. demographic data, date |
The important characteristics of the samples were their age, gender, education background, number of years as a community pharmacist and whether they were working in independent or chain pharmacies. | 3 |
| d). Data collection | |||
| 17. Interview guide | Were questions, prompts, guides provided by the authors? Was it pilot tested? | A topic guide was prepared (Table 1), and pilot tested with 3 participants. Data from interviews conducted in the pilot test were included in the final analysis. | 3 |
| 18. Repeat interviews | Were repeat interviews carried out? If yes, how many? | No repeat interviews were carried out. | 3 |
| 19. Audio/visual recording | Did the research use audio or visual recording to collect the data? | Interviews were audio recorded. | 3 |
| 20. Field notes | Were field notes made during and/or after the interview or focus group? | Field notes were made by JN after every interview and focus group discussion. These field notes were used to assist in the analysis of the transcribed audio recordings. | 3 |
| 21. Duration | What was the duration of the interviews or focus group? | The duration of the in-depth interviews ranged from 30 to 60 min, while the focus group discussions were approximately 60 min. | 3 |
| 22. Data saturation | Was data saturation discussed? | Data saturation was discussed in the methodology section. | 3 |
| 23. Transcripts returned | Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/or correction? | The transcripts were not returned to participants for comment or correction. | 3 |
| Domain 3: analysis and findings | |||
| a). Data analysis | |||
| 24. Number of data coders | How many data coders coded the data? | Four authors worked in pairs (JN with CJN, and PSML with LE). | 3 |
| 25. Description of the coding tree | Did authors provide a description of the coding tree? | The two pairs of authors coded two interviews line-by-line to develop an initial list of nodes, and to develop a framework. This framework was then used to code the next transcript. Coding discrepancies were resolved by discussion between representatives of the pairs until consensus was reached. The lists of nodes were used as the final coding framework for the remaining transcripts. New nodes emerging during coding were added to the list upon consultation with the research team. The lists of nodes were regrouped into larger categories as themes emerged from the data. This systematic approach to the analysis established an audit trail from the transcripts of raw data through to the final interpretation. Analysis was undertaken concurrently with data collection to check for data saturation. | 3 |
| 26. Derivation of themes | Were themes identified in advance or derived from the data | The themes were derived from the data during analysis. | 4 |
| 27. Software | What software, if applicable, was used to manage the data? | NVivo 10 was used to manage the data. | 3 |
| 28. Participant checking | Did participants provide feedback on the findings? | No, participants did not provide any feedback on the findings. | n/a |
| b). Reporting | |||
| 29. Quotations presented | Were participant quotations presented to illustrate the themes / findings? Was each quotation identified? e.g. participant number |
Yes, quotations were presented and identified by the respondent’s age and gender. | 4-7 |
| 30. Data and findings consistent | Was there consistency between the data presented and the findings? | Yes, there was consistency between the data presented and the findings. | 4-7 |
| 31. Clarity of major themes | Were major themes clearly presented in the findings? | Yes, major themes was clearly presented in the findings. | 4-7 |
| 32. Clarity of minor themes | Is there a description of diverse cases or discussion of minor themes? | No, there was no descriptions of the diverse cases or discussion of minor themes presented. | n/a |