Table 3.

Assessment of qualitative studies included in this review

	Batchelor, 1990 [22]	French et al., 2006 [23]	Hill et al., 2010	Jacobson and Eran, 1980 [24]	Newton et al., 2004 [26]	Peisah, Gautam, and Goldstein, 2009 [9]	Quandango, 1978 [27]	Sansom, 2016 [28]	Silver, Pang, and Williams, 2015 [29]	Wakeford, Roden, and Rothman, 1986 [18]
1. Does the study address a clearly focused question/issue?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
2. Is the research method (study design) appropriate for answering the research question?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
3. Was the context clearly described?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
4. How was the fieldwork undertaken? Was it described in detail? Are the methods for collecting data clearly described?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	N
5. Could the evidence (fieldwork notes, interview transcripts, recordings, documentary analysis, etc.) be inspected independently by others?	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N
6. Are the procedures for data analysis reliable and theoretically justified? Are quality control measures used?	N	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	N
7. Was the analysis repeated by more than one researcher to ensure reliability?	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	N
8. Are the results credible, and if so, are they relevant for practice?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
9. Are the conclusions drawn justified by the results?	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
10. Are the findings of the study transferable to other settings?	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	N	N

Responses in the affirmative (Y) are indicative of higher validity and quality; those in the negative (N) indicate absence of support.

Adapted from Crombie, The Pocket Guide to Critical Appraisal; the critical appraisal approach used by the Oxford Centre for Evidence Medicine, checklists of the Dutch Cochrane Centre, BMJ editor’s checklists and the checklists of the EPPI Centre.