Interpretation

Has a more conceptual discussion of the results and linkage to existing theory or new theory been developed to explain the relevance of findings to a targeted audience or discipline?

Consideration to those involved in the process (research triangulation)

Consideration to member checking been made?

Triangulation of data sources? OR methods OR theory?

Blind analysis was undertaken and agreement between two reviewers was assessed.

Lack of clarity around the analysis

Triangulation of methods was undertaken

Have any negative cases been included and discussed?

Not identified.

Not identified.

Not identified.

Reflexivity and evaluative rigour

Has a clear statement of the effect on the data of the researcher’s views and the methods chosen been included?

No clear statement is made.

Yes consideration to this is made.

Yes consideration to this is made.

Has an explicit evaluation of the relationship between the researcher and those under research, addressing any ethical issues, been discussed?

Ethical approval been mentioned, steps taken to avoid adverse effects on individuals. Others consulted in the design of the research

Ethical approval not clearly identified.

Ethical considerations identified.

Ethical considerations identified.

Has ethics approval been obtained from an appropriate institution?

Ethical approval not clearly identified.

Ethical approval gained

Ethical approval gained

Transferability

Has a critical evaluation of the application of findings to other similar contexts been made?

What context and setting information is provided and how similar is that to other settings?

The setting Is a regional medical centre. No further details are given. The content of the intervention is clear and could be applied elsewhere.

The setting was an online setting.

The setting was in a residential rehabilitation location

Has the relevance of these findings to current knowledge, policy, and practice or to current research been discussed?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes