Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity
Personal characteristics
1. Interviewer/facilitator	Two authors, Drs. Robin L. Whitney and Anne E. C. White conducted the in‐depth interviews.
2. Credentials	Dr. Whitney received her BA in English and German from Bowdoin College, her BS in Nursing from the University of Southern Maine, and her PhD in Nursing Science and Healthcare Leadership from UC Davis. Dr. White received her AB in Sociology from Princeton University and her MA and PhD in Sociology from UCLA.
3. Occupation	Dr. Whitney is an assistant professor at The Valley Foundation School of Nursing at San Jose State University. Dr. White was a postdoctoral researcher and fellow at the Center for Healthcare Policy and Research and in the Department of Internal Medicine at UC Davis Medical Center.
4. Gender	Drs. Whitney and White identify as female.
5. Experience and training	Dr. Whitney has had training and experience conducting qualitative interviews and data analysis as a graduate research assistant at UC Davis and has subsequently been a co‐investigator on several qualitative research projects involving patient experiences. Dr. White has conducted qualitative research for 15+ years. Her dissertation and post‐doctoral research have focused on medical sociology, doctor–patient interactions, and qualitative methodologies.
Relationship with participants
6. Relationship established	Researchers had no prior relationship with participants.
7. Participant knowledge or researchers	Participants had no prior knowledge of the researchers.
8. Interviewer characteristics	The researchers’ methodological training is reported.
Domain 2: Study design
Theoretical framework
9. Methodological orientation and theory	The methodological orientation that underpins the study is thematic analysis.
Participant selection
10. Sampling	This study used convenience sampling.
11. Method of approach	We recruited participants from both large, academic medical centers and smaller community‐based centers primarily in Northern and Central California, working with oncology staff to distribute pamphlets to eligible individuals, posting on multiple medical centers’ study pages, and disseminating recruitment flyers at multiply myeloma support groups.
12. Sample size	Nineteen participants.
13. Non‐participation	No participants refused to participate or dropped out of the study.
Setting
14. Setting of data collection	Researchers collected the data via phone interviews for 17 participants. Two participants were interviewed in‐person (at their request) in a reserved office on campus at UC Davis Medical Center.
15. Presence of non‐participants	For the two in‐person interviews, no non‐participants were present. For the 17 interviews conducted via the phone, only one participant had his spouse actively co‐present (on speaker phone) during the interview, but understood that only his responses would be transcribed.
16. Description of sample	We interviewed a total of 19 individuals with MM. Most of our sample identified as non‐Hispanic White (78.9%), between the ages of 55–64 (36.8%) or 65–74 (31.6%), and married (57.9%). Our participants were generally well‐educated, with 42.1% reporting a 2‐ or 4‐year college degree and 26.3% reporting a post‐baccalaureate degree. Approximately two thirds of participants identified as newly diagnosed with MM (63.2%). The sample was evenly divided between men (n = 9) and women (n = 10).
Data collection
17. Interview guide	Participants were not provided with an interview guide before the interview. The interview guide was pilot tested with members of the research team. The interview guide was reviewed and updated during data collection.
18. Repeat interviews	No repeat interviews were conducted.
19. Audio/visual recording	Audio recordings were collected.
20. Field notes	Researchers wrote brief summaries and highlights of interviews immediately following the interviews.
21. Duration	Interviews lasted for 1 h.
22. Data saturation	After we had interviewed seven patients and had received their corresponding transcripts, we began to review the interviews and conduct initial analysis. We assessed that after 12 patients we had reached data saturation. If additional patients then contacted us for interviews, we still interviewed them as we wanted to include as many individual experiences as possible to illustrate the broadest range.
23. Transcripts returned	Transcripts were not returned to participants.
Domain 3: Analysis and findings
Data analysis
24. Number of data coders	Two researchers, Drs. Whitney and White directly coded the data. They met bimonthly with the PI, Dr. Kathy Kim, and the project’s research assistant, Nilpa Shah, to discuss and refine themes. The whole research team (all co‐authors) met quarterly to discuss larger themes found.
25. Description of coding tree	Coding was conducted in Nvivo with larger “parent” themes and nested “child” themes.
26. Derivation of themes	Themes were inductively derived from the data.
27. Software	Nvivo
28. Participant checking	Participants did not provide feedback on the findings.
Reporting
29. Quotations presented	Participants quotations are provided to illustrate the themes. Each quotation is identified with the participant ID number.
30. Data and findings consistent	There is consistency between the data presented and findings. Quotations were selected for their representation of the data.
31. Clarity of major themes	Our three major themes (and subthemes) are clearly presented in the findings along with definitions or explanations.
32. Clarity of minor themes	Yes, diverse cases are included in the findings. For example, in the “personal beliefs or preferences” subtheme, we provide examples how physicians’ ethnicities can serve both as a positive and as a negative attribute for their patients.