Skip to main content

Table 6 COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) Checklist

From: Primary care physician perspectives on barriers to diagnosing axial Spondyloarthritis: a qualitative study

Domain and Items

Page Number Reported

Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity

Personal characteristics

 1. Interviewer/facilitator

Which author/s conducted the interview or focus group?

Page 5.

The first and third-named authors listed conducted the interviews.

 2. Credentials

What were the researcher’s credentials?

Page 1.

 3. Occupation

What was their occupation at the time of the study?

Page 1.

 4. Gender

Was the researcher male or female?

N/A.

 5. Experience and training

What experience or training did the researcher have?

Page 5.

Relationship with participants

 6. Relationship established

Was a relationship established prior to study commencement?

This is acknowledged on Page 5: “Thirty-four participants including those who were known to the research team or their colleagues (approached by emails) or who were identified through state and regional primary care professional societies (face-to-face) were invited to participate.”

 7. Participant knowledge of the interviewer

What did the participants know about the researcher? e.g. personal goals, reasons for doing the research

Following on from above, some participants known to the research team were recruited. While a few of the participants knew the researcher (KLL), none knew of any personal goals or reasons for doing the research.

Participants received a fact sheet about the research (including its aims and rationale) and had the opportunity to ask the researcher additional questions prior to deciding if they wished to participate.

Page 11: “All participants provided informed consent.”

 8. Interviewer characteristics

What characteristics were reported about the interviewer/facilitator? e.g. Bias, assumptions, reasons and interests in the research topic

Page 5–6.

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

Page 6.

Participant selection

 10. Sampling

How were participants selected? e.g. purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball

Page 5.

 11. Method of approach

How were participants approached? e.g. face-to- face, telephone, mail, email

Page 5.

 12. Sample size

How many participants were in the study?

Page 5.

 13. Non-participation

How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons?

Page 5.

Setting

 14. Setting of data collection Where was the data collected? e.g.

home, clinic, workplace

Page 5.

 15. Presence of non-participants Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers?

Page 5.

“Interviews were conducted by experienced, trained personnel (KLL, DS), with an observer from the research team participating and taking notes.”

 16. Description of sample

What are the important characteristics of the sample? e.g. demographic data, date

Page 5 & 7.

Data collection

 17. Interview guide

Were questions, prompts, guides provided by the authors? Was it pilot tested?

Page 5–6.

 18. Repeat interviews

Were repeat interviews carried out? If yes, how many?

Page 6. “No repeat interviews were conducted.”

 19. Audio/visual recording

Did the research use audio or visual recording to collect the data?

Page 5. “We conducted phone interviews using Zoom.”

 20. Field notes

Were field notes made during and/or after the interview or focus group?

Page 5.

 21. Duration

What was the duration of the interviews or focus group?

Page 5.

 22. Data saturation

Was data saturation discussed?

Page 5.

 23. Transcripts returned

Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/or correction?

N/A.

Domain 3: analysis and findings

Data analysis

 24. Number of data coders

How many data coders coded the data?

Page 6.

 25. Description of the coding tree

Did authors provide a description of the coding tree?

Page 6.

 26. Derivation of themes

Were themes identified in advance or derived from the data?

Page 6.

 27. Software

What software, if applicable, was used to manage the data?

Page 6.

 28. Participant checking

Did participants provide feedback on the findings?

Page 6.

Reporting

 29. Quotations presented

Were participant quotations presented to illustrate the themes / findings? Was each quotation identified? e.g.

participant number

Page 15–19: Table 2, 3, 4 and 5

 30. Data and findings consistent

Was there consistency between the data presented and the findings?

Page 7; Page 15–19: Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5

 31. Clarity of major themes

Were major themes clearly presented in the findings?

Page 15–19: Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5

 32. Clarity of minor themes

Is there a description of diverse cases or discussion of minor themes?

N/A.