Appendix A.

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research checklist

Item	Guide questions/description	Reported in section or page no.a
Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity
Personal characteristics
1. Interviewer/facilitator	Which author/s conducted the interview or focus group?	See Methods → Data collection and analysis
2. Credentials	What were the researcher’s credentials? For example, Ph.D., M.D.	See affiliations and titles
3. Occupation	What was the researcher’s occupation at the time of the study?	All researchers were researchers
4. Gender	Was the researcher male or female?	LM, PH: male; CM, EK, LW: female
5. Experience and training	What experience or training did the researcher have?	CG has experience in qualitative research methods that capture people’s perspectives on and experiences with a range of effects, including health professional training, evaluation of programs, and consumer input into and feedback on resources. She has actively engaged with developing interview guides, facilitating focus group and interview discussions with children and adults, thematic analysis and syntheses of qualitative data for reports, and, more recently, scientific publications. PH has undertaken semistructured interviews and focus groups with health care professionals, managers, and executives mainly in relation to patient safety and quality improvement over the last 15 years for the purposes of research and evaluation. He is the author of 14 peer-reviewed papers that undertook qualitative analysis of patient safety incident reports. EK has had relevant research experience in planning, conducting, and reporting feasibility studies of clinical interventions for low back pain and knee osteoarthritis. EK is also a registered physiotherapist. Over the last 7 years, LW’s primary qualitative research activities have centered around leading and analyzing data from focus groups and semistructured interviews with diverse stakeholder groups (e.g., health care professionals, researchers, policymakers, tertiary educators, consumers, and journal editors) to seek their perspectives on a range of topics. These include exploring their experiences of referral and triage processes for patients with spinal complaints, the use of clinical practice guidelines and their understanding of the underlying development processes, recommendations for defining roles and credentialing requirements for extended scope physiotherapy practitioners in Australia, the meaning of consumer engagement, the application of person-centered care principles in residential aged care, and journal publication practices and trends. In addition, Louise has coauthored several metasyntheses, which have facilitated skills in critical appraisal, analysis, and aggregation of data from primary qualitative studies. LW is also a registered physiotherapist. GLM is the professor of neuroscience and foundation chair in physiotherapy at the University of South Australia.
Relationship with participants
6. Relationship established	Was a relationship established prior to study commencement?	There was no relationship between the study participants and the researchers prior to the commencement of the study.
7. Participant knowledge of the interviewer	What did the participants know about the researcher? For example, personal goals, reasons for doing the research	The participant information form that was provided with the consent form signed by the participant was explicit in its description of the purpose of the research and the professional qualifications of the researchers (CG, PH, LM). This information was provided to participants in more detail in the workshops.
8. Interviewer characteristics	What characteristics were reported about the interviewer/facilitator? For example, bias, assumptions, reasons, and interests in the research topic	One of the researchers (PH) was a facilitator who had worked in the same profession as the participants, meaning that he had shared experience of the clinical context in which the participants were applying their new knowledge. CG, who was not from the same profession, may have acted to mitigate bias from PH being from the same profession as the participants.
Domain 2: Study design
Theoretical framework
9. Methodological orientation and theory	What methodological orientation was stated to underpin the study? For example, grounded theory, discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenology, content analysis	See Methods → Study design: Interpretive description
Participant selection
10. Sampling	How were participants selected? For example, purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball	See Methods → Sampling strategy
11. Method of approach	How were participants approached? For example, face-to-face, telephone, mail, e-mail	Participants were initially approached by e-mail and then a follow-up telephone when they were invited to participate in the study.
12. Sample size	How many participants were in the study?	See Methods → Sampling strategy: 6
13. Nonparticipation	How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons?	No people refused to participate or dropped out
14. Setting of data collection	Where was the data collected? For example, home, clinic, workplace	See Methods → Data collection and analysis: Clinic, over the telephone.
15. Presence of nonparticipants	Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers?	There was no one else present during data collection besides the participants and researchers.
16. Description of sample	What are the important characteristics of the sample? For example, demographic data, date	See Table 3
Data collection
17. Interview guide	Were questions, prompts, and guides provided by the authors? Was it pilot tested?	See Methods → Data collection and analysis and Appendices C and D
18. Repeat interviews	Were repeat interviews carried out? If yes, how many?	Data were collected at multiple time points, including seven discussion forums, a semistructured interview, and an electronic questionnaire.
19. Audio/visual recording	Did the research use audio or visual recording to collect the data?	See Methods → Data collection and analysis
20. Field notes	Were field notes made during and/or after the interview or focus group?	See Methods → Data collection and analysis
21. Duration	What was the duration of the interviews or focus group?	See Results
22. Data saturation	Was data saturation discussed?	Given the small number of participants, data saturation was not discussed.
23. Transcripts returned	Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/or correction?	See Methods → Data collection and analysis
Domain 3: Analysis and findings
Data analysis
24. Number of data coders	How many data coders coded the data?	See Methods → Data collection and analysis
25. Description of the coding tree	Did authors provide a description of the coding tree?	Not applicable
26. Derivation of themes	Were themes identified in advance or derived from the data?	Themes were derived from the data (inductive)
27. Software	What software, if applicable, was used to manage the data?	Software was not used to manage the data
28. Participant checking	Did participants provide feedback on the findings?	See Methods → Data collection and analysis
Reporting
29. Quotations presented	Were participant quotations presented to illustrate the themes/findings? Was each quotation identified? For example, participant number	Yes, see text
30. Data and findings consistent	Was there consistency between the data presented and the findings?	See themes in the results compared to the quotations in text
31. Clarity of major themes	Were major themes clearly presented in the findings?	See Results
32. Clarity of minor themes	Is there a description of diverse cases or discussion of minor themes?	No diverse cases (other than the spectrum of quotes presented in Results) or minor themes were discussed

^aThe third column either reports the section in the manuscript where the information is found or, if the information is not in the manuscript, a summary is provided.