You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 CASP Qualitative checklist

From: Stakeholders perspectives on the key components of community-based interventions coordinating care in dementia: a qualitative systematic review

Study ID (author date) 1. Was there a clear statement of the aims of the research? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) 2. Is a qualitative methodology appropriate? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) 3. Was the research design appropriate to address the aims of the research? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) 4. Was the recruitment strategy appropriate to the aims of the research? (Y/Can’t tell/ N) 5. Was the data collected in a way that addressed the research issue? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) 6. Has the relationship between the researcher and participants been adequately considered? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) 7. Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) 8. Was the analysis sufficiently rigorous? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) 9. Is there a clear statement of findings? (Y/ Can’t tell/ N) 10. How valuable is the research?
Gladman et al. 2007 [16] Y Y Y Can’t tell Y Can’t tell Y Y Y A valuable service evaluation assessing quality of care and coditions of care, which will be useful for replication of service.
Iliffe et al. 2014a [14] Y Y Y Y Y Can’t tell Y Y Y Adds substantial value in trying to replicate a US trial in the UK, and contributes valuable, detailed findings from process evaluation.
Kosteniuk et al. 2014 [17] Y Y Y Y Y Can’t tell Y Can’t tell Y Research contributes valuable findings from GPs views on coordinating interventions, but is lacking in detail and confined to rural settings.
Minkman et al. 2009 [18] Y Y Y Y Y Can’t tell Can’t tell Can’t tell Y Research is valuable in comparing variations of case management programmes, but needs more detail in findings.
Van Mierlo et al. 2014 [19] Y Y Y Y Y Can’t tell Y Y Y Provides useful and novel insight into the barriers and facilitators to delivering coordinating interventions.