Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2007;19(6):349-357.

Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity

Personal Characteristics

1. Interviewer/facilitator

Which author/s conducted the interview or focus group?

Joy Probyn (pg 5).

2. Credentials

What were the researcher’s credentials?

PhD (pg 1 and 5).

3. Occupation

What was their occupation at the time of the study?

Research Fellow (pg 1 and 5).

4. Gender

Was the researcher male or female?

Female (pg 1).

5. Experience and training

What experience or training did the researcher have?

10 years experience of conducting qualitative health research (4 years post-doctoral); PhD research training (pg 1 and 5).

Relationship with participants

6. Relationship established

Was a relationship established prior to study commencement?

No (pg 4-5 explain recruitment and interview process).

7. Participant knowledge of the interviewer

What did the participants know about the researcher? e.g. personal goals, reasons for doing the research

University researcher not involved in direct care provision with aim to improve informed consent practice for PCI (pg 5).

8. Interviewer characteristics

What characteristics were reported about the interviewer / facilitator? e.g.

Bias, assumptions, reasons and interests in the research topic

Female post-doctoral qualitative researcher, not involved in care provision working with a larger team of health professionals, researchers and service users (pages 1 and 5).

Domain 2: study design

Theoretical framework

9. Methodological orientation and


What methodological orientation was stated to underpin the study?

e.g. grounded theory, discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenology, content analysis

Constructivist grounded theory (pg 4).

Participant selection

10. Sampling

How were participants selected?

e.g. purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball

Purposive and theoretical sampling (pg 4).

11. Method of approach

How were participants approached? e.g. face-to-face, telephone, mail, email

Mail and face-to-face (pg 4).

12. Sample size

How many participants were in the study?

60 (41 patients and 19 cardiologists) (pg 4).

13. Non-participation

How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons?

Ninety-eight eligible patients and 22 cardiologists were invited to participate. The final sample comprised 41 patients (42% response rate) and 19 cardiologists (13 consultant cardiologists and 6 cardiology registrars; 86% response rate). Informed consent discussions were audio-recorded for 37 of the 41 patient participants. Thirteen acute patients at one hospital withdrew before interview; nine changed their mind and four were not contactable (pg 6).


14. Setting of data collection

Where was the data collected? e.g. home, clinic, workplace

Hospital (cardiologists and patients) or home (patients) (pg 5).

15. Presence of non-participants

Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers?

No (pg 6).

16. Description of sample

What are the important characteristics of the sample?

e.g. demographic data, date

Patients: Gender, age, elective/acute PCI referral.

Cardiologists: Gender, age, interventional cardiologist? (pg 6).

Data collection

17. Interview guide

Were questions, prompts, guides provided by the authors? Was it pilot tested?

Interview guide was developed from exiting literature and piloted with service user group. Example of interview guide included in supplementary material.

18. Repeat interviews

Were repeat interviews carried out? If yes, how many?


19. Audio/visual recording

Did the research use audio or visual recording to collect the data?

Yes; interviews and consent discussions were audio-recorded with participants’ consent (pg 5).

20. Field notes

Were field notes made during and/or after the interview or focus group?

Yes; field notes and memos were recorded throughout the data collection and analysis process (pg 5).

21. Duration

What was the duration of the interviews or focus group?

Consent discussions: average 7 minutes.

Interviews: average 37 minutes (pg 5).

22. Data saturation

Was data saturation discussed?

Yes: “Data analysis and recruitment took place simultaneously until data saturation was reached, to allow for the exploration of emerging themes in the analysis in keeping with constant comparison methodology” (pg 5).

23. Transcripts returned

Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/or correction?

No. Service users were involved in data analysis (pg 5).

Domain 3: analysis and findings

Data analysis

24. Number of data coders

How many data coders coded the data?

Three: JP, FA and JG (pg 5).

25. Description of the coding tree

Did authors provide a description of the coding tree?

Yes; see Table 2 in manuscript (pg 7-10). Full coding tree available from authors on request.

26. Derivation of themes

Were themes identified in advance or derived from the data?

Derived from the data (pgs 6-16).

27. Software

What software, if applicable, was used to manage the data?

NVIVO v10 (pg 5).

28. Participant checking

Did participants provide feedback on the findings?

No.Service users were involved in data analysis. Findings were presented to and discussed with cardiology service user group to facilitate interpretation validation (pg 5).


29. Quotations presented

Were participant quotations presented to illustrate the themes/findings? Was each quotation identified? e.g. participant number

Yes (pg 7-10).

30. Data and findings consistent. Was there consistency between the data presented and the findings?

Yes the quotations represent the themes and categories presented (pg 6-16).

31. Clarity of major themes

Were major themes clearly presented in the findings?

Yes – three major themes containing two categories in each (pg 6-16).

32. Clarity of minor themes

Is there a description of diverse cases or discussion of minor themes?

Yes – cases diverging from the main categories are mentioned, eg. pg 15: “A small minority of patients defined it as a decision-making exercise; in one case this was because the patient was given a choice to make between bypass surgery and PCI. Although this patient was given adequate information, he was not confident he had made the ‘right’ decision, indicating the importance of the doctor-patient partnership in decision-making.”