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.