Skip to main content

Table 4 Methodological quality of included qualitative studies (n = 7)

From: A systematic review of the impact of stigma and nihilism on lung cancer outcomes

Quality category Studies meeting criterion, n (%)
1. Sample  
(a) Clear and/or Justified Sampling frame  
2. Clear rationale for sample selection 5 (71)
1.Convenience sample (e.g., volunteers) 2 (29)
0. Sampling rationale not described and/or clear 0
(b) Adequacy of sample size  
2. Rationale for sample size provided and met 3 (43)
1. Rationale for sample size provided but not met 0
0. No rationale provided 4 (57)
(c) Adequacy of sample description  
2. Sample adequately described 3 (43)
1. Sample partially described 4 (57)
0. Sample not described 0
2. Qualitative framework (theoretical orientation e.g., feminism, interpretivism, critical theory)  
2. Framework provided for study design and methodology and orientation disclosed 1 (14)
0. No framework provided 6 (86)
3. Interviewer bias addressed  
2.Yes 2 (29)
0. No 5 (71)
4. Data recording  
2. Objective methods used for data capture (e.g., tape recording, transcription) 7 (100)
0. Subjective methods used or methods not described 0
5. Data analysis  
2. Method of analysis described (e.g., thematic analysis, interpretative, phenomenological analysis, content analysis) and detailed 5 (71)
1. Either method of analysis described only or detailed only 2 (29)
0. Method of analysis not described or detailed 0
6. Reliability and validity  
2. Checks for data credibility are provided (e.g., triangulation, audits and continual recoding, intercoder and intracoder reliability) 3 (43)
1.Partial checks for data credibility 2 (29)
0. No clear checks provided for reliability and validity of qualitative approach 2 (29)
7. Data presentation  
2. Examples of data presented that provide an understanding of data analysis and interpretation (one or two quotes or specific examples) 7 (100)
1. Examples provided but do not present a clear interpretation of data 0
0. Very little data presented 0