Table 2

Quality appraisal scores (using tool from Hawker et al24)

Source paper (n=7)Abstract/titleIntroduction/aimsMethod/dataSamplingData analysisEthics/biasResultsTransferabilityImplicationsScore (out of 36)
Fang et al264—Structured abstract with full information title is clear4—concise background to discussion, contain up-to-date literature review, highlight gaps in knowledge; statement of aim and objectives may not be clear but can still be found in the paragraphs4—method is appropriate and described clearly (interview themes mentioned); clear details of the data collection and recording4—appropriate sampling method; details of who was studied and how they were recruited; explained the reason of being targeted; response rate and justification of sample size are not mentioned in the study4—clear description of how analysis was done; detailed description of how themes derived4—ethics: address issues of confidentiality, sensitivity and consent; bias: researcher was reflexive and aware of own bias4—findings are explicit and easy to understand as the authors divided them into different paragraphs per different themes; tables are explained in text; results directly related to aims3—only insights of young and marginalised women affected generalisability4—provided insights from a gender lens, letting us to see whether women being treated unequally; suggest ideas for further research and implications for policy and practice35
Heidenreich et al274—structured abstract bit better to divide in sections3—clear statement of aims but no objectives4—appropriate and described in detail; included interview questions; clear details of the data collection and recording4—inclusion criteria listed and sampling method appropriate; how study population being recruited described clearly; justified why target this group of participants4—clear description on how analysis was done; how themes derived are described3—researchers’ own bias not acknowledged4—findings easy to understand, tables are easily read and explained in text; results relate to aims3—some context and settings are described but replication of study with larger sample size and different sites are needed4 – contribute to something new; discussed the research question (communication); suggestions of ideas for further research and implications for nursing practice33
Nielsen et al283—abstract not in good structure3—full background for explaining the framework used in the study but little mention in the knowledge gap; literature review and background is adequate but aims and research questions not clear1—no details of data collection3—inadequate information of sampling strategy1—no details of data analysis2—no mention of bias acknowledged4—findings were easy to follow and understand in a logical progression with subheadings; results directly related to purpose of the study3—context and setting of the study is described3—new insights mentioned; suggested ways for policy change23
Mondia et al293—abstract with most of the information; purpose was not stated3—inadequate background and literature review; aim and objectives are mentioned; research gap is acknowledged3—method can be described in details2—no mention of sampling method or settings2—inadequate details of data analysis2—only one sentence for de-identification3—presented logically but more can be added to illustrate results2—only some context and setting described3 – further research direction and clinical implications are mentioned23
Yonashiro-Cho et al303—abstract with most information but not well-structured3—some background to discussion, highlighting in knowledge gaps; clear statements of aim and objectives; no research question mentioned3—method appropriate and data collection is given; recruitment mentioned but can be further elaborated in detail; focus group protocol is included3—appropriate sampling method; recruitment can be given in detail3—described grounded theory used and theme derived from coding; more can be given1—no mention of issues of confidentiality, sensitivity or consent3—findings in logical progression but can be elaborated more; demographic table was explained in text; data presented relate directly to resultsThree context and settings of immigrants in America was described but the interpretation of results may not be generalisable4—good to suggest informal and indirect ways for communication26
Chi et al314—structured abstract; good literature review3—concise background to discussion; highlighted the knowledge gap; clear statement of aim but no objectives mentioned4—appropriate focused ethnographic study with justification; data collection is described with sample interview questions; handling of recording of data is described with information3—sampling method is appropriate; inclusion criteria recruitment process described; why this group is targeted is missing4—clear description of how analysis was done; description of how theme derived using open coding and there was triangulation to strengthen the study’s rigour2—only mention informed consent given4—indings are explicit and easy to understand; shown clearly in tables; results related directly to aims; direct quotes were presented to support findings3—context and settings were given and described4—new insights demonstrated; suggested ideas for further research; suggested implications for practice31
Duke and Petersen324—structured abstract with aim, method, results and conclusion; clear title is given3—no mention of objectives4—method is appropriate and described clearly; details of data collection clearly shown4—inclusion and exclusion criteria of participants described; how they recruited was stated; why this group being targeted mentioned; sample size has not justified but response rate is shown yet without explanation4—clear description of how themes derived: using Krippendorff’s thematic data analysis method3—informed consent was address but confidentiality and sensitivity were not acknowledged; researcher bias was addressed through training for them4—findings explicit to understand; four themes were discussed point by point; table with themes and subthemes was elaborated in text; results related directly to aims; direct quotes from interviews and focus group discussions used to support the findings3—most context and setting described, data collected through the study subjects were not generalisable3—new insights that there should not be cultural stereotype and assumption based on ethnicity or culture group; suggests implications for practice32