Perceptions of trained laypersons in end-of-life or advance care planning conversations: a qualitative meta-synthesis

Somes, Elizabeth; Dukes, Joanna; Brungardt, Adreanne; Jordan, Sarah; DeSanto, Kristen; Jones, Christine D.; Sanghvi, Urvi Jhaveri; Breathett, Khadijah; Jones, Jacqueline; Lum, Hillary D.

doi:10.1186/s12904-018-0354-9

Table 5 Summary of critical appraisal of study quality

From: Perceptions of trained laypersons in end-of-life or advance care planning conversations: a qualitative meta-synthesis

Domain	Berry & Planalp	Brighton et al.	Clarke et al.	Foster	Jones et al.	Planalp & Trost	Planalp et al.	Rocque et al.	Seymour et al.
Study purpose: Was purpose or research question stated?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Literature: Was relevant literature reviewed?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Study design: Was a theoretical perspective identified?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Sampling: Was the process of purposeful selection described?	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes
Was sampling done until redundancy in data was reached?	N.A.	Yes	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.	N.A.
Was informed consent obtained?	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	N.A.	N.A.	Yes	N.A.
Data Collection: Was procedural rigor used?	Yes	Yes	N.A.	No	N.A.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Descriptive clarity: Complete description of site	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes
Descriptive clarity: Complete description of participant	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Description of role of researcher and relationship with participants	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes
Identification of assumption and biases of researcher	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	No
Analytical rigor: Were data analyses inductive?	No	Yes	N.A.	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	N.A.
Were findings consistent with and reflective of data?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Auditability: Was a decision trail developed?	N.A.	Yes	N.A.	Yes	No	N.A.	Yes	N.A.	No
Was the process of analyzing the data described adequately?	Yes	Yes	No	N.A.	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Theoretical connections: Did a meaningful picture emerge?	No	No	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Credibility: Do descriptions and interpretations of participants capture the phenomenon?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes
Transferability: Can the findings be transferred to other situations?	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Dependability: Was there consistency between data and findings?	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Confirmability: Were strategies employed to minimize bias?	No	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	No	Yes	No
Conclusions: Were conclusions appropriate given study findings?	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Implications: Were findings meaningful to “laypersons” and communication?	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Total score:	60%	95%	61%	60%	50%	68%	60%	95%	84%

Quality appraisal results and scoring of included studies using McMaster University tool

Back to article page

ISSN: 1472-684X

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcpalliativecare@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Palliative Care

Contact us