Table 1 Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ) checklist [19]
From: Barriers in detecting elder abuse among emergency medical technicians
Investigators (n = 2) | Graduate research assistants (GRAs; n = 4) | |
|---|---|---|
Domain 1: Research team and reflexivity | ||
Personal characteristics | ||
Interview/facilitator | At least one Investigator led each of the 5 focus groups | Three of the four project GRAs assisted in focus group administration as note-takers |
Credentials | PhD | 1) A doctoral candidate with a MPH degree |
2) A medical student | ||
3) M.S. student with experience in qualitative research | ||
4) Recent MPH graduate | ||
Occupation | Assistant Professors at large research universities in the Dallas-Fort Worth area | All GRAs were current students during the time of the study |
Gender | 1 male; 1 female | 1 male; 3 female |
Experience and training | Both Investigators received a PhD in epidemiology from an accredited school of public health. One investigator has previously conducted and published qualitative research studies | All GRAs were required to read a training manual on qualitative research procedures. All GRAs had training in human subjects research |
Relationship with participants | ||
Relationship established | No relationship with focus group participants before study commencement | |
Participant knowledge of the interviewer | Participants had no knowledge of the researcher’s personal goals or reasons for doing the research before focus groups were conducted. | |
Interviewer characteristics | Participants were informed that the Investigators were researchers from local universities. GRAs were introduced as research assistants. Participants were told that the focus groups were being conducted as part of a National Institute of Justice funded study to create a screening tool for EMTs that would attenuate barriers to reporting elder abuse and neglect. | |
Domain 2: Study design | ||
Theoretical framework | EMTs | APS |
Methodological orientation and theory | Grounded Theory | |
Participant selection | ||
Sampling | Participants were sampled conveniently | |
Method of approach | All EMTs employed by the mobile healthcare provider and APS caseworkers were e-mailed by executive staff members at each agency (not the research team). | |
Sample size | 11 | 12 |
Non-participation | Executive staff members at the mobile healthcare provider and APS were responsible for recruiting participants. Given the sensitivity of this topic, the research team was not provided identifiable information about the participants (or potential participants) and information about non-participation could not be assessed. | |
Setting | ||
Setting of data collection | Mobile healthcare provider office | Local APS branch office |
Presence of non-participants | No persons other than the researchers and the participants were present during data collection | |
Description of sample | Gender: 7 were men and 4 were women. | Gender: 11 were women, 1 man |
Race/Ethnicity: All were White, and one also identified as Hispanic. | Race/Ethnicity: One participant was White and the remainder were Black. | |
Age: Mean was 40 years old (range 20-67) | Age: Mean of 39 years (range 23-63) | |
Experience: Mean paramedic-level EMT for 7 years (range 2-22 years) | Experience: APS employee for 10 years (range <1-35) | |
Data collection | ||
Interview guide | The authors provided questions and prompts. However, the focus groups were semi-structured in nature and the conversation commonly deviated from the script. | |
Repeat interviews | No repeat interviews were carried out. | |
Audio/visual recording | Audio, but not visual, recording was used to collect data. After recording were transcribed by a GRA and verified by an Investigator, recordings were destroyed. | |
Field notes | The secondary interviewer took field notes during each focus group. | |
Duration | 1 - 1.5 h | |
Data saturation | The research team discussed data saturation after the first 3 focus groups and again after 2 additional focus groups. Data collection continued after the first 3 focus groups because the transcripts did not reflect saturation (new themes were being identified in focus group 3). After 5 focus groups, data collection was deemed complete, as no new themes were identified after transcript examination. | |
Transcripts returned | Transcripts were not returned to participants for comments or corrections, as no identifiable information about participants was collected. | |
Domain 3: Analysis and findings | ||
Data analysis | ||
Number of coders | Two coders coded data (one Investigator and one trained GRA) | |
Description of the coding tree | There was no a priori coding tree created due to the limited theoretical knowledge base in this area. The two coders used a ‘two rivers’ approach to coding and identifying themes [33] | |
Derivation of themes | Themes were derived from the data and not identified in advance | |
Software | Dedoose 2.0 was used for data management | |
Participant checking | Participants did not provide feedback on the findings. However, executive staff members at the mobile healthcare provider organization were provided a list of major themes. | |
Reporting | ||
Quotations presented | Participant quotations are presented to illustrate themes. | |
Data and findings consistent | There was consistency between the data presented and study findings. | |
Clarity of major themes | All major themes relevant to the research question are discussed. | |
Clarity of minor themes | Minor themes/diverse cases are discussed where relevant in the text. | |