No. Item	Guide questions/description	Reported on Page #
Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity
Personal Characteristics
1. Interviewer/facilitator	Which author/s conducted the interview or focus group? Not applicable	N/A
2. Credentials	What were the researcher’s credentials? E.g. PhD, MD The PI has a PhD, a Master’s in Clinical Psychology, Chartered Psychologist status with the British Psychological Society: BPS Reg #: 09951; and a member of the Health Care Professions Council: Reg #: PLY15944 Millan is a Health Psychologist (MSc), Yuan a psycho-therapist (Msc) and Cameron is a Therapy Radiographer with BSc and Diploma of College of Radiographers	Page 1
3. Occupation	What was their occupation at the time of the study? GH: Chair of Health Psychology and Hon Consultant of Clinical Psychology NHS Lothian; IDMHM: MSc Trainee; YY: MSc Research Assistant; JC: Senior Therapy Radiographer	Page 14
4. Gender	Was the researcher male or female? IDMHM; YY, JC: Female/ GH: Male	Not explicitly stated
5. Experience and training	What experience or training did the researcher have? IDMHM: 1 year trainee; YY: 2 year trainee and research assistant; JC: Practitioner researcher over 5 years +; GH: Health services and health care communication researcher over 40 years + , e.g. Chair of Standing Committee on Research of the International Association of Communication in Healthcare (2014-2018) www.https://www.each.eu/	Not explicitly stated
Relationship with participants
6. Relationship established	Was a relationship established prior to study commencement? Consecutive patients consented by research assistant and radiographer in clinic during time of treatment delivery to participants	Page 12
7. Participant knowledge of the interviewer	What did the participants know about the researcher? e.g. personal goals, reasons for doing the research Full patient information sheet (PIS) passed by NRES NHS Committee that outlined objectives of research	Page 12
8. Interviewer characteristics	What characteristics were reported about the interviewer/facilitator? e.g. Bias, assumptions, reasons and interests in the research topic The data collected were observations (as outlined in the PIS). These were verbatim transcripts of the interaction between radiographer (therapy) and the patient during weekly review meetings. Hence these meetings were routine review consultations without a research agenda. The patient was aware that the consultations were recorded for future analysis of emotional response to treatment and the management of their treatment during their daily visits for radiotherapy. The researcher analyzing the transcripts was a masters student with a particular interest in fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and extensive knowledge of the Lee-Jones et al FCR Model.	Page 12
Domain 2: study design
Theoretical framework
9. Methodological orientation and Theory	What methodological orientation was stated to underpin the study? e.g. grounded theory, discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenology, content analysis Essentially this was a content analysis with a well-known framework outlined by the Lee-Jones et al FCR Model	Page 13
Participant selection
10. Sampling	How were participants selected? e.g. purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball Consecutive and included those patients that had interactions of 3 or 4 weekly taped recordings completed	Page 12
11. Method of approach	How were participants approached? e.g. face-to-face, telephone, mail, email Face-to-face	Page 12
12. Sample size	How many participants were in the study? Total sample of 97 patients of which 8 were included that had full information on 3 to 4 review recordings and FCR questionnaire ratings	Page 12
13. Non-participation	How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons? A total of 202 patients were approached after CT scan and 93 patients refused to participate in the study. The major reasons for refusal were: not wanting to be reminded of cancer (62%); not interested (19%); or too busy (9%). Finally, the total number of breast cancer patients enrolled in the study was 97 (response rate, 48%)	Page 12
Setting
14. Setting of data collection	Where was the data collected? e.g. home, clinic, workplace Clinic	Page 12
15. Presence of non-participants	Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers? No	Page 12
16. Description of sample	What are the important characteristics of the sample? e.g. demographic data, date All patients who were being treated with breast cancer attending a specialist hospital treatment centre. Demographic data included in paper	Page 14
Data collection
17. Interview guide	Were questions, prompts, guides provided by the authors? Was it pilot tested? Not applicable as the recordings were patient-centred and the content was led by patient concerns following radiographer open ended questions about ‘how the patient was with their treatment?’	Page 13
18. Repeat interviews	Were repeat interviews carried out? If yes, how many? As explained above the patients made repeated visits (from 3 up to 4 consultations separated by a week in all cases)	Page 15
19. Audio/visual recording	Did the research use audio or visual recording to collect the data? Audio-stereo digital recordings	Page 13
20. Field notes	Were field notes made during and/or after the interview or focus group? Questionnaire completion of FCR ratings at each consultation	Page 12
21. Duration	What was the duration of the interviews or focus group? Average duration was approximately 10 minutes	Page 15
22. Data saturation	Was data saturation discussed? Saturation was not applicable to this study as the objective was to determine whether the patient interactions reflected the formulation that the Lee-Jones et al model had outlined in previous work with patients with cancer	Page 14
23. Transcripts returned	Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/or correction? No, The audio-recordings were collected and stored onto a safe haven for research team to have access alone	Not explicitly stated in paper
Domain 3: analysis and findings
Data analysis
24. Number of data coders	How many data coders coded the data? Two	Page 14
25. Description of the coding tree	Did authors provide a description of the coding tree? Coding based upon Lee-Jones et al model	Page 14
26. Derivation of themes	Were themes identified in advance or derived from the data? Advanced with some room for additional constructs to be added if required	Page 14
27. Software	What software, if applicable, was used to manage the data? Excel spreadsheet	Page 16
28. Participant checking	Did participants provide feedback on the findings? No	Not explicitly stated in paper
Reporting
29. Quotations presented	Were participant quotations presented to illustrate the themes/findings? Was each quotation identified? e.g. participant number Quotations supplied with patient number linked	Page 18 to 27
30. Data and findings consistent	Was there consistency between the data presented and the findings? Researchers make links between the L-J FCR Model and quotations	Page 18 to 27
31. Clarity of major themes	Were major themes clearly presented in the findings? Yes	Page 18 to 27
32. Clarity of minor themes	Is there a description of diverse cases or discussion of minor themes? All cases were described in detail and revealed a mix of description from very detailed consistency to minor themes to an overall less descriptive match to major themes	Discussion of major and minor themes Page 18 to 27