Table 3 Quality appraisal scores (using tool from Hawker et al. 2002 [27])

Hakanson et al., (2015) [6]

Providing Palliative Care in a Swedish Support Home for People Who Are Homeless

4

3 – literature review good but no objectives

4 – good description of data collection and recording methods

2/3 – no justification of sampling size but reports that all staff at the hostel were invited…?

4

4 – good description of ethical considerations. Researchers role reflected upon in design section

4 – finding relate to aims and are supported by quotes

4 – the context and setting of the research are well described

4 – insights from Sweden, ideas for research – perspectives of participants, practice – apply interventions based on this research to other pall care settings for HP

33/34

Ko & Nelson-Becker (2014) [33]

Does end-of-life decision making matter? Perspectives of older homeless adults

4

2/3 – no objectives. Literature review brief

3 – brief but includes some of the Qs asked.

2/3 recruitment no justification of sample size.

4

2 – insufficient detail for full assessment to be made

4 – clear & relate to aims, supported by quotes

3 – setting more needed to replicate

4 – insights of older HP, research – mixed site, practice – recommendations for discussing EoL

28/30

Ko, Kwak & Nelson-Becker (2015) [32]

What Constitutes a Good and Bad Death?: Perspectives of Homeless Older Adults

4

3 – no objectives, good lit review

3 – Brief but includes some of the Qs asked.

2/3 recruitment & participant characteristics described, no justification of sample size.

4

2 – insufficient detail for full assessment to be made

4

2 setting- more needed to replicate

4 – themes relating to good death for older HP – research – include HP from multiple sites – practice – HCP need better understanding of HP and EoL

Same participants as previous study

28/29