Table A2.
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 four authors (RDC, ACLT, CLN). |
| 2. | Credentials | What were the researcher’s credentials? e.g., PhD, MD |
RDC and JGGS were Phd. ACLT and CLN were MsC. |
| 3. | Occupation | What was their occupation at the time of the study? | RDC and JGGS were researchers, ACLT was physician, and CLN was nurse. |
| 4. | Gender | Was the researcher male or female? | RDC, ACLT and CLN were female. JGGS was a man. |
| 5. | Experience and training | What experience or training did the researcher have? | All researchers had experience in carrying out qualitative research and the have been trained to conduct interviews. |
| 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, reason 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, reason 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 | Snowballing For convenience |
| 11. | Method of approach | How were participants approached? e.g., face-to-face, telephone, mail, email | Telephone and face-to-face |
| 12. | Sample size | How many participants were in the study? | 16 mental health professionals, 9 women and 7 men, aged between 24 and 63 years. |
| 13. | Non-participation | How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons? | No participant |
| Setting | |||
| 14. | Setting of data collection | Where was the data collected? e.g., home, clinic, workplace | The interviews were carried out face-to-face in different places. |
| 15. | Presence of non- participants | Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers? | No, it wasn’t. |
| 16. | Description of sample | What are the important characteristics of the sample? e.g., demographic data, date | Mental health professionals, workers in mental health units, Spain. |
| 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? | Yes, field notes. |
| 21. | Duration | What was the duration of the inter views or focus group? | About 40–50 min |
| 22. | Data saturation | Was data saturation discussed? | Yes, it was |
| 23. | Transcripts returned | Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/or correction? | No, it wasn’t. |
| Doman 3: Analysis and findings | |||
| Data analysis | |||
| 24. | Number of data coders | How many data coders coded the data? | Two (CLN 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? | Nvivo Version 12 |
| 28. | Participant checking | Did participants provide feedback on the findings? | Yes, they did. |
| 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. |
Font: Tong, A. Sainsbury, P., and Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus group. International. Journal Qualitative. Health Care 19: 349–357.