methodology checklist: qualitative studies€¦ · methodology checklist: qualitative studies1...

Methodology checklist: qualitative studies1

Study identification Include author, title, reference, year of publication

Pier C, Shandley KA, Fisher JL et al. Identifying the health and mental

health information needs of people with coronary heart disease, with

and without depression. Med J Aust. 2008; 188(12 Suppl):S142-S144.

Guidance topic: Stable Angina Key research question/aim: What are the information needs of

patients with stable angina regarding their condition and its

management?

Checklist completed by:

Sharangini

Section 1: theoretical approach

1.1 Is a qualitative approach appropriate? For example:

• Does the research question seek to understand processes or structures, or illuminate subjective experiences or meanings?

• Could a quantitative approach better have addressed the research question?

Appropriate

Inappropriate □

Not sure □

Comments: To identify health and mental health information needs of people with coronary heart disease would need a qualitative approach.

1.2 Is the study clear in what it seeks to do? For example:

• Is the purpose of the study discussed – aims/objectives/research question(s)?

• Is there adequate/appropriate reference to the literature?

• Are underpinning values/assumptions/theory discussed?

Clear

Unclear □

Mixed □

Comments: To identify the health and mental health information needs of people with coronary heart disease, with and without co-morbid depression.

Section 2: study design

2.1 How defensible/rigorous is the research design/methodology? For example: • Is the design appropriate to the research

question? • Is a rationale given for using a qualitative

approach? • Are there clear accounts of the

rationale/justification for the sampling, data collection and data analysis techniques used?

• Is the selection of cases/sampling strategy theoretically justified?

Defensible

□ Not defensible

□ Not sure

Comments: Design appropriate for the research question.

Section 3: data collection

3.1 How well was the data collection carried out? For example: • Are the data collection methods clearly

described? • Were the appropriate data collected to

address the research question? • Was the data collection and record keeping

systematic?

Appropriate

□ Inappropriate

□ Not sure/ inadequately reported

Comments: Semi-structured interviews, audio-taped, transcribed verbatim after removal of identifying information.

Section 4: validity

4.1 Is the role of the researcher clearly described? For example: • Has the relationship between the researcher

and the participants been adequately considered?

• Does the paper describe how the research was explained and presented to the participants?

Clear

□ Unclear

□ Not described

Comments: The interviewers guided the interviews and encouraged participants to talk freely about the subject matter but redirected participants who deviated from the purpose of the interviews.

4.2 Is the context clearly described? For example:

• Are the characteristics of the participants and settings clearly defined?

• Were observations made in a sufficient variety of circumstances?

• Was context bias considered?

Clear

□ Unclear

□ Not sure

Comments: Patients recruited form GP practices. Characteristics of patients reported.

4.3 Were the methods reliable? For example:

• Were data collected by more than one method?

• Is there justification for triangulation, or for not triangulating?

• Do the methods investigate what they claim to?

Reliable

□ Unreliable

□ Not sure

Comments: Data collected by only one method: Audio taping of semi-structured interviews.

Section 5: analysis

5.1 Is the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? For example: • Is the procedure explicit – is it clear how the

data were analysed to arrive at the results? • How systematic is the analysis – is the

procedure reliable/dependable? • Is it clear how the themes and concepts

were derived from the data?

Rigorous

□ Not rigorous

□ Not sure/not

reported

Comments: Data analysed by an independent investigator using the thematic approach.

5.2 Are the data ‘rich’? For example:

• How well are the contexts of the data described?

• Has the diversity of perspective and content been explored?

• How well have the detail and depth been demonstrated?

• Are responses compared and contrasted across groups/sites?

□ Rich

□ Poor

Not sure/not reported

Comments: Responses not compared across groups.

5.3 Is the analysis reliable? For example: • Did more than one researcher theme and

code transcripts/data? • If so, how were differences resolved? • Did participants feed back on the

transcripts/data? (if possible and relevant) • Were negative/discrepant results addressed

or ignored?

Reliable

□ Unreliable

□ Not sure/not

reported

Comments: Analysis conducted an independent investigator; subsequent examination of the analysis was done by two additional investigators.

5.4 Are the findings convincing?

For example: • Are the findings clearly presented? • Are the findings internally coherent? • Are extracts from the original data included? • Are the data appropriately referenced? • Is the reporting clear and coherent?

Convincing

□ Not convincing

□ Not sure

Comments: Well supported themes with quotations presented.

5.5 Are the findings relevant to the aims of the study?

Relevant

□ Irrelevant

□ Partially relevant

Comments: Findings are descriptive of the information needs of the patients.

5.6 Are the conclusions adequate? For example: • How clear are the links between data,

interpretation and conclusions? • Are the conclusions plausible and coherent? • Have alternative explanations been explored

and discounted?

□

□ • Does this study enhance understanding of

the research subject? • Are the implications of the research clearly

defined? • Is there adequate discussion of any

limitations encountered?

Adequate

Inadequate

Not sure

Comments: see narrative

Section 6: ethics

6.1 How clear and coherent is the reporting of ethical considerations? For example, • Have ethical issues been taken into

consideration? • Are ethical issues discussed adequately –

do they address consent and anonymity? • Have the consequences of the research

been considered; for example, raising expectations, changing behaviour?

• Was the study approved by an ethics committee?

□

Clear

Not clear

Not sure/not □ reported

Comments: Study approved by the Monash University Human Research and Ethics Committee.


Weetch RM. Patient satisfaction with information

received after a diagnosis of angina. Prof Nurse. 2003;

19(3):150-153.

Guidance topic: Stable angina Key research question/aim: What are the

information needs of patients with stable angina

regarding their condition and its management?

Checklist completed by: Sharangini





Appropriate

□ Inappropriate

□ Not sure

Comments: Descriptive study of patient information needs requires qualitative approach.





Clear

□ Unclear

□ Mixed

Comments: Aim: To determine the level of satisfaction of patients with the amount and quality of information that they receive.







Defensible

□ Not defensible

□ Not sure

Comments: The design is appropriate to the research question. The authors state that to measure a subjective reaction a qualitative approach is needed.





systematic?

□ Appropriate

□ Inappropriate

Not sure/ inadequately reported

Comments: Data was collected by questionnaires. Appropriate data was collected addressed the research question. But additional details about data collection/questionnaires not reported.

Section 4: validity




□ Clear

□ Unclear

Not described

Comments: Role of the researcher not well described. The participants were given a letter of explanation, together with a questionnaire and a stamped addressed return envelope.





□ Clear

□ Unclear

Not sure

Comments: The population were patients suffering from angina who had been hospitalised in the coronary care ward. Characteristics of participants not well reported. There was no discussion of context bias.





□ Reliable

□ Unreliable

Not sure

Comments: Only one method was used – Questionnaire.

Section 5: analysis





□ Rigorous

□ Not rigorous


Comments: No details given on the method of analysis used. The study reports that both quantitative and qualitative themes were identified.






□ Rich

Poor

□ Not sure/not

reported

Comments: Contexts of the data not well reported. The responses were compared between patients who had previous MI and those who had angina.




or ignored?

□ Reliable

□ Unreliable


Comments: Not details of analysis reported, hence difficult to consider the results to be reliable.



□ Convincing

Not convincing

□ Not sure

Comments: Very brief description of the results reported. No quotes from participants/patients reported.


Relevant

□ Irrelevant


Comments: The study also reported the type and amount of information needs stated by participants in the group.



and discounted? • Does this study enhance understanding of




□

□

Adequate

Inadequate

Not sure

Comments: The results of the study indicatedthat patients want more information. There was no discussion regarding the limitations of the study. But the authors state that ‘statistically a further study is needed to confirm the findings of this study’.

Section 6: ethics






□

Clear

Not clear

Not sure/not □ reported

Comments: Permission for the study was obtained from the local ethics committee.


Karlik BA, Yarcheski A, Braun J et al. Learning needs of

patients with angina: an extension study. J Cardiovasc Nurs.

1990; 4(2):70-82.

Guidance topic: Stable Angina Key research question/aim: What are the information needs of patients with stable angina regarding their condition and its management?

Checklist completed by: Sharangini





Appropriate

□ Inappropriate

□ Not sure

Comments: Descriptive study of learning needs of patients requires qualitative approach.





Clear

□ Unclear

□ Mixed

Comments: Aim : To compare the learning needs of patients with angina with ratings by the patients themselves and the nurses who care for them.







Defensible

□ Not defensible

□ Not sure

Comments: Design is appropriate to the research question.





systematic?

Appropriate

□ Inappropriate


Comments: Data collected by validated learning needs instruments.

Section 4: validity




□ Clear

□ Unclear

Not described

Comments: Role of the researcher not well described.





□ Clear

□ Unclear

Not sure

Comments: Patients were recruited from an acute care hospital where patients were admitted for a cardiac catheterisation. Characteristics of patients not well reported.





Reliable

□ Unreliable

□ Not sure

Comments: Only one method was used-Validated learning instruments.

Section 5: analysis





□Rigorous

Not rigorous

□ Not sure/not reported

Comments: Qualitative method sued. Means values reported but not standard deviation.






□Rich

□ Poor


Comments: Only questions in the learning needs instruments considered. Limited range of information categories in the learning needs instruments.




or ignored?

□Reliable

□ Unreliable


Comments: No details on data analysis reported.



□Convincing

□ Not convincing

Not sure

Comments: Mean values and description of the data reported.


Relevant

□ Irrelevant


Comments: Study reports the preferred information categories by the patients and preference of educator.







□

□

Adequate

Inadequate

Not sure

Comments: Authors state the limitations of the study: small sample size, limited range of responses on the Likert scale. Further research as reported in the study: Use of a more sensitive instrument so that subtle differences in beliefs might be more readily detected and reliabilities might be increased.

Section 6: ethics


consideration? □

• Are ethical issues discussed adequately – do they address consent and anonymity?

• Have the consequences of the research been considered; for example, raising expectations, changing behaviour?


Clear

□

Not clear


Comments: Approval by Institutional Review Board.


McGillion MH, Watt-Watson JH, Kim J et al. Learning by heart: a focused group

study to determine the self-management learning needs of chronic stable angina

patients. Can J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2004; 14(2):12-22.

Guidance topic: Stable

angina

Key research question/aim: What are the information needs of

patients with stable angina regarding their condition and its management?

Checklist completed by:

Sharangini





Appropriate

□ Inappropriate

□ Not sure

Comments: Descriptive study of patient learning needs requires a qualitative approach.





Clear

□ Unclear

□ Mixed

The purpose of the study was to determine the self-management learning needs of chronic stable angina patients living at home.







Defensible

□ Not defensible

□ Not sure

Comments: The study design is appropriate to the research question. The authors give the rationale for using focus groups in the study ‘’Focus groups foster the ‘collective voice’, rather than individual voices, allowing for more free expression of ideas from participants who may otherwise feel constrained or pressured by the researcher in a one-to-one interview situation”.





systematic?

Appropriate

□ Inappropriate


Comments: Focus groups were held in a classroom setting and semi-structures interviews moderated by the Principal investigator. An independent assistant moderator took field notes and all focus groups were audio taped. .

Section 4: validity




Clear

□ Unclear

□ Not described

Comments: The Principal investigator explained the procedure to the focus groups and also moderated the semi-structured interviews.





Clear

□ Unclear

□ Not sure

Comments: Participants recruited from two outpatient clinics and the cardiovascular rehabilitation centre at the study site. Characteristics of participants reported. There was no discussion of context bias.





Reliable

□ Unreliable

□ Not sure

Comments: Data only collected by one method-audio taping of the semi-structured interviews and then transcribed in full.

Section 5: analysis





Rigorous

□ Not rigorous


Comments: Branden’s Self-Help Model was the conceptual framework and was used to guide the transcript based analysis.






□ Rich

□ Poor


Comments: Responses not compared between groups. The authors report that, as no new themes emerged during the second patient group in relation to the first, the investigators determined the data saturation had been reached and that interviewing the absent individuals at a later date was unnecessary.




or ignored?

Reliable

□ Unreliable


Comments: Two researchers reduced the data in to themes and then selected key illustrative quotes. At the end of each focus group session, a summary of the results was read back to the participants, enabling them to verify key issues.



Convincing

□ Not convincing

□ Not sure

Comments: Well supported themes with quotations presented.


Relevant

□ Irrelevant


Comments: Findings are descriptive of the learning needs of the participants.







□

□

Adequate

Inadequate

Not sure

Comments: The study reports the limitations of the study: Use of purposive sampling, which may limit transferability of findings; use of focus groups may create an artificial setting. Further research defined: Include broad range of professionals (beyond nursing and medicine) in order to obtain a wider perspective on the self-management learning needs of chronic stable angina patients.

Section 6: ethics






□

Clear

Not clear


Comments: Approval from Ethical review boards of a Canadian University and University-affiliated hospital.

methodology checklist: qualitative studies€¦ · methodology checklist: qualitative studies1...

Documents