Criteria for quality | Means and practices through which criteria were achieved |
---|---|
Worthy topic | • Relevance with regard to societal events and priorities (e.g., lack of consensual definition on palliative sedation, legalization of assisted death) • In line with recent literature on palliative sedation |
Rich rigor | • In-depth focus group discussions • Abundant and complex data • Appropriate theoretical constructs • Reflexive notes taken after each focus groups • Transparency about data collection and data analysis • Peer-discussions to deepen data analysis |
Sincerity | • Reflexivity about preconceptions about palliative sedation and assisted death • Reflexivity about the researchers’ credentials, leading to collaboration and peer discussions to reflect on learning and practice • Transparency about methodological and theoretical assumptions • Recognition of the study limitations |
Credibility | • “Thick” descriptions (e.g., rich descriptions in line with data complexity, numerous quotes from participants) • Immersion in the data to ascertain tacit knowledge |
Resonance | • Evocative quotes leading to empathic resonance • Transferable findings |
Significant contribution | • Practical and heuristic significance of the study (e.g., extending phenomenological knowledge on palliative sedation in the context of various settings and in the context of legalized assisted death) • Can lead to improve clinical practices |
Ethics | • Ethics committee approval • Relational ethics (e.g., consideration of interdependence between researchers and participants, from data collection to data analysis) |
Meaningful coherence | • Questions, paradigm, method and analysis in line with Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) • Interconnections between aims, literature, data and interpretations |