Table 1 Hawker tool description
1. Abstract and title: Did they provide a clear description of the study? | |
 Good | Structured abstract with full information and clear title. |
 Fair | Abstract with most of the information. |
 Poor | Inadequate abstract. |
 Very poor | No abstract. |
2. Introduction and aims: Was there a good background and clear statement of the aims of the research? | |
 Good | Full but concise background to discussion/study containing up-todate literature review and highlighting gaps in knowledge. |
Clear statement of aim AND objectives including research questions. | |
 Fair | Some background and literature review. |
Research questions outlined. | |
 Poor | Some background but no aim/objectives/questions, OR |
Aims/objectives but inadequate background. | |
 Very poor | No mention of aims/objectives. |
No background or literature review. | |
3. Method and data: Is the method appropriate and clearly explained? | |
 Good | Method is appropriate and described clearly (e.g., questionnaires included). Clear details of the data collection and recording. |
 Fair | Method appropriate, description could be better. |
Data described. | |
 Poor | Questionable whether method is appropriate. |
Method described inadequately. | |
Little description of data. | |
 Very poor | No mention of method, AND/OR |
Method inappropriate, AND/OR | |
No details of data. | |
4. Sampling: Was the sampling strategy appropriate to address the aims? | |
 Good | Details (age/gender/race/context) of who was studied and how they were recruited. |
Why this group was targeted. | |
The sample size was justified for the study. | |
Response rates shown and explained. | |
 Fair | Sample size justified. |
Most information given, but some missing. | |
 Poor | Sampling mentioned but few descriptive details. |
 Very poor | No details of sample. |
5. Data analysis: Was the description of the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? | |
 Good | Clear description of how analysis was done. |
Qualitative studies: Description of how themes derived/respondent validation or triangulation. | |
Quantitative studies: Reasons for tests selected hypothesis driven/numbers add up/statistical significance discussed. | |
 Fair | Qualitative: Descriptive discussion of analysis. |
Quantitative. | |
 Poor | Minimal details about analysis. |
 Very poor | No discussion of analysis. |
6. Ethics and bias: Have ethical issues been addressed, and what has necessary ethical approval gained? Has the relationship between researchers and participants been adequately considered? | |
 Good | Ethics: Where necessary issues of confidentiality, sensitivity, and consent were addressed. |
Bias: Researcher was reflexive and/or aware of own bias. | |
 Fair | Lip service was paid to above (i.e., these issues were acknowledged). |
 Poor | Brief mention of issues. |
 Very poor | No mention of issues. |
7. Results: Is there a clear statement of the findings? | |
 Good | Findings explicit, easy to understand, and in logical progression. |
Tables, if present, are explained in text. | |
Results relate directly to aims. | |
Sufficient data are presented to support findings. | |
 Fair | Findings mentioned but more explanation could be given. |
Data presented relate directly to results. | |
 Poor | Findings presented haphazardly, not explained, and do not progress logically from results. |
 Very poor | Findings not mentioned or do not relate to aims. |
8. Transferability or generalizability: Are the findings of this study transferable (generalizable) to a wider population? | |
 Good | Context and setting of the study is described sufficiently to allow comparison with other contexts and settings, plus high score in Question 4 (sampling). |
 Fair | Some context and setting described, but more needed to replicate or compare the study with others, PLUS fair score or higher in Question 4. |
 Poor | Minimal description of context/setting. |
 Very poor | No description of context/setting. |
9. Implications and usefulness: How important are these findings to policy and practice? | |
 Good | Contributes something new and/or different in terms of understanding/insight or perspective. |
Suggests ideas for further research. | |
Suggests implications for policy and/or practice. | |
 Fair | Two of the above (state what is missing in comments). |
 Poor | Only one of the above. |
 Very poor | None of the above. |