Table 3.

Quality appraisal scores (using tool from Hawker et al. 2002 [27])

Source Paper (n = 12)	Title of paper	Abstract/Title	Intro/Aims	Method/Data	Sampling	Data Analysis	Ethics/Bias	Results	Transferability	Implications	Comments	Quality score (out of 36)
Hakanson et al., (2015) [6]	Providing Palliative Care in a Swedish Support Home for People Who Are Homeless	4	3 – literature review good but no objectives	4 – good description of data collection and recording methods	2/3 – no justification of sampling size but reports that all staff at the hostel were invited…?	4	4 – good description of ethical considerations. Researchers role reflected upon in design section	4 – finding relate to aims and are supported by quotes	4 – the context and setting of the research are well described	4 – insights from Sweden, ideas for research – perspectives of participants, practice – apply interventions based on this research to other pall care settings for HP		33/34
Ko & Nelson-Becker (2014) [33]	Does end-of-life decision making matter? Perspectives of older homeless adults	4	2/3 – no objectives. Literature review brief	3 – brief but includes some of the Qs asked.	2/3 recruitment no justification of sample size.	4	2 – insufficient detail for full assessment to be made	4 – clear & relate to aims, supported by quotes	3 – setting more needed to replicate	4 – insights of older HP, research – mixed site, practice – recommendations for discussing EoL		28/30
Ko, Kwak & Nelson-Becker (2015) [32]	What Constitutes a Good and Bad Death?: Perspectives of Homeless Older Adults	4	3 – no objectives, good lit review	3 – Brief but includes some of the Qs asked.	2/3 recruitment & participant characteristics described, no justification of sample size.	4	2 – insufficient detail for full assessment to be made	4	2 setting- more needed to replicate	4 – themes relating to good death for older HP – research – include HP from multiple sites – practice – HCP need better understanding of HP and EoL	Same participants as previous study	28/29