Skip to main content

Table 3 Assessment of qualitative studies included in this review

From: A systematic review of physician retirement planning

 

Batchelor, 1990 [22]

French et al., 2006 [23]

Hill et al., 2010

Jacobson and Eran, 1980 [24]

Newton et al., 2004 [26]

Peisah, Gautam, and Goldstein, 2009 [9]

Quandango, 1978 [27]

Sansom, 2016 [28]

Silver, Pang, and Williams, 2015 [29]

Wakeford, Roden, and Rothman, 1986 [18]

1. Does the study address a clearly focused question/issue?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

2. Is the research method (study design) appropriate for answering the research question?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

3. Was the context clearly described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

4. How was the fieldwork undertaken? Was it described in detail? Are the methods for collecting data clearly described?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

5. Could the evidence (fieldwork notes, interview transcripts, recordings, documentary analysis, etc.) be inspected independently by others?

N

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

6. Are the procedures for data analysis reliable and theoretically justified? Are quality control measures used?

N

Y

Y

N

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

7. Was the analysis repeated by more than one researcher to ensure reliability?

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

N

Y

Y

N

8. Are the results credible, and if so, are they relevant for practice?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

Y

9. Are the conclusions drawn justified by the results?

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

10. Are the findings of the study transferable to other settings?

Y

N

Y

Y

Y

N

Y

Y

N

N

  1. Responses in the affirmative (Y) are indicative of higher validity and quality; those in the negative (N) indicate absence of support.
  2. Adapted from Crombie, The Pocket Guide to Critical Appraisal; the critical appraisal approach used by the Oxford Centre for Evidence Medicine, checklists of the Dutch Cochrane Centre, BMJ editor’s checklists and the checklists of the EPPI Centre.