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.