Table C1.
Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ): 32-Item Checklist
| No | Item | Guide questions/description | Response |
|---|---|---|---|
| Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity | |||
| Personal Characteristics | |||
| 1. | Interviewer/facilitator | Which author/s conducted the interview or focus group? | All the interviews were conducted by the one author, LL. |
| 2. | Credentials | What were the researcher's credentials? E.g. PhD, MD | BB, RDC and GL were PhD. LL was a nursing student. |
| 3. | Occupation | What was their occupation at the time of the study? | Researcher's occupations at the time of the study: student and research professor. |
| 4. | Gender | Was the researcher male or female? | BB, RDC and LL were females. GL was male. |
| 5. | Experience and training | What experience or training did the researcher have? | All researchers had experience in carrying out qualitative research. BB has been trained to conduct interviews and RDC has training in social research. LL has been trained to analyze data of qualitative research. |
| Relationship with participants | |||
| 6. | Relationship established | Was a relationship established prior to study commencement? | No, there wasn't. |
| 7. | Participant knowledge of the interviewer | What did the participants know about the researcher? e.g. personal goals, reasons for doing the research | Name, occupation, reasons for doing the research. |
| 8. | Interviewer characteristics | What characteristics were reported about the interviewer/facilitator? e.g. Bias, assumptions, reasons and interests in the research topic | Name, occupation, contact method, reasons for doing the research. |
| 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 | Phenomenological and ethnographic approach with a discourse and content analysis. |
| Participant selection | |||
| 10. | Sampling | How were participants selected? e.g. purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball | Purposive and snowball sampling procedure. |
| 11. | Method of approach | How were participants approached? e.g. face-to-face, telephone, mail, email | Interviews occurred at a time of convenience to the participant, using telephone calls, e-mail or other web meetings. |
| 12. | Sample size | How many participants were in the study? | 19 nursing professionals from ICU and emergency services |
| 13. | Non-participation | How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons? | None |
| Setting | |||
| 14. | Setting of data collection | Where was the data collected? e.g. home, clinic, workplace | The activation of the “State of Emergency” in Spain did not allowed face-to-face meetings with health professionals, nor mobility between cities. Therefore, interviews occurred at a time of convenience to the participant, using telephone calls, e-mail or other web meetings. A quiet and comfortable place was chosen by each participant (home or workplace). |
| 15. | Presence of non- participants | Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers? | There were other health professionals and family members. |
| 16. | Description of sample | What are the important characteristics of the sample? e.g. demographic data, date | 78.9% were women with a mean age of 30 years. 57.9% participants was working in emergency departments and the most common cities were Barcelona (47.3%), Madrid (15.8%), and Seville (36.9%). |
| Data collection | |||
| 17. | Interview guide | Were questions, prompts, guides provided by the authors? Was it pilot tested? | Yes, they were. / Yes, it was. |
| 18. | Repeat interviews | Were repeat inter views carried out? If yes, how many? | No, they weren't. |
| 19. | Audio/visual recording | Did the research use audio or visual recording to collect the data? | Audio recording. |
| 20. | Field notes | Were field notes made during and/or after the interview or focus group? | No, they weren't. |
| 21. | Duration | What was the duration of the inter views or focus group? | Average 50-60 minutes. |
| 22. | Data saturation | Was data saturation discussed? | Yes, it was. |
| 23. | Transcripts returned | Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/or correction? | Reviewed by 2 participants. |
| Doman 3: Analysis and findings | |||
| Data analysis | |||
| 24. | Number of data coders | How many data coders coded the data? | Two (LL and RDC). |
| 25. | Description of the coding tree | Did authors provide a description of the coding tree? | Yes, we did. |
| 26. | Derivation of themes | Were themes identified in advance or derived from the data? | Themes were derived using both methods. |
| 27. | Software | What software, if applicable, was used to manage the data? | MAXQDA |
| 28. | Participant checking | Did participants provide feedback on the findings? | Reviewed by 2 participants |
| Reporting | |||
| 29. | Quotations presented | Were participant quotations presented to illustrate the themes/findings? Was each quotation identified? e.g. participant number | Yes, there were. / Yes, there was. |
| 30. | Data and findings consistent | Was there consistency between the data presented and the findings? | Yes, there was. |
| 31. | Clarity of major themes | Were major themes clearly presented in the findings? | Yes, they were. |
| 32. | Clarity of minor themes | Is there a description of diverse cases or discussion of minor themes? | Yes, there is. |
Developed from: Tong, A. Sainsbury, P., and Craig, J. 2007. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32- ítem checklist for interviews and focus group. Int. J. Qual. Health Care 19: 349-357.