CHECKLIST FOR

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews
Introduction

JBI is an international research organisation based in the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the
University of Adelaide, South Australia. JBI develops and delivers unique evidence-based information,
software, education and training designed to improve healthcare practice and health outcomes. With over
70 Collaborating Entities, servicing over 90 countries, JBI is a recognised global leader in evidence-based
healthcare.

JBI Systematic Reviews

The core of evidence synthesis is the systematic review of literature of a particular intervention, condition
or issue. The systematic review is essentially an analysis of the available literature (that is, evidence) and a
judgment of the effectiveness or otherwise of a practice, involving a series of complex steps. JBI takes a
particular view on what counts as evidence and the methods utilised to synthesise those different types of
evidence. In line with this broader view of evidence, JBI has developed theories, methodologies and
rigorous processes for the critical appraisal and synthesis of these diverse forms of evidence in order to aid
in clinical decision-making in healthcare. There now exists JBI guidance for conducting reviews of
effectiveness research, qualitative research, prevalence/incidence, etiology/risk, economic evaluations,
text/opinion, diagnostic test accuracy, mixed-methods, umbrella reviews and scoping reviews. Further
information regarding JBI systematic reviews can be found in the JBI Evidence Synthesis Manual.

JBI Critical Appraisal Tools

All systematic reviews incorporate a process of critique or appraisal of the research evidence. The purpose
of this appraisal is to assess the methodological quality of a study and to determine the extent to which a
study has addressed the possibility of bias in its design, conduct and analysis. All papers selected for
inclusion in the systematic review (that is – those that meet the inclusion criteria described in the protocol)
need to be subjected to rigorous appraisal by two critical appraisers. The results of this appraisal can then
be used to inform synthesis and interpretation of the results of the study. JBI Critical appraisal tools have
been developed by the JBI and collaborators and approved by the JBI Scientific Committee following
extensive peer review. Although designed for use in systematic reviews, JBI critical appraisal tools can also
be used when creating Critically Appraised Topics (CAT), in journal clubs and as an educational tool.

© JBI, 2020. All rights reserved. JBI grants use of these Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research - 2
tools for research purposes only. All other enquiries
should be sent to jbisynthesis@adelaide.edu.au.
JBI CRITICAL APPRAISAL CHECKLIST FOR
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Reviewer: Date:

Author: Amanda Drury Year: 2021 Record Number: 2666-142X/© 2021

Yes No Unclear Not

applicable

1. Is there congruity between the stated philosophical

perspective and the research methodology? Apakah ada
kesesuaian antara perspektif filosofis yang dinyatakan dengan
metodologi penelitian?
Ya
Perspektif filosofis:
perawatan kesehatan telah menanggapi tantangan pemberian
layanan selama COVID-19 dengan model perawatan
telehealth dan hybrid. Namun, ada pemahaman yang terbatas
tentang pengalaman perawatan di antara orang-orang yang
terkena kanker dan bagaimana pengalaman mereka dapat
berubah dan berkembang melawan perubahan insiden □ □ □ □
COVID-19, kematian, vaksinasi, dan penyempurnaan dalam
pemberian layanan.

Metodologi penelitian:
Studi kualitatif deskriptif longitudinal (pada waktu tertentu)
dengan mengundang orang yang hidup dengan kanker
(pasien kanker) melanoma, payudara, prostat, paru-paru dan
usus besar dan pengasuh mereka untuk berpartisipasi dalam
hingga tiga wawancara semi-terstruktur untuk memahami dan
menggambarkan pengalaman perawatan mereka selama
COVID-19

□ □ □ □
2. Is there congruity between the research methodology and the
research question or objectives? Apakah ada kesesuaian
antara metodologi penelitian dan pertanyaan atau tujuan
penelitian?
Ya

Metodologi penelitian:
Dalam peelitian menggunakan crosssectional awal dan desain
penelitian kualitatif longitudinal yang akan digunakan dalam
penelitian ini dengan wawancara semi-terstruktur.

Tujuan penelitian:
Studi ini mengeksplorasi pengalaman perawatan kanker di

© JBI, 2020. All rights reserved. JBI grants use of these Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research - 3
tools for research purposes only. All other enquiries
should be sent to jbisynthesis@adelaide.edu.au.
 antara orang-orang yang terkena kanker di Irlandia selama
pandemi COVID-19 dengan menyajikan hasil wawancara
semiterstruktur crosssectional awal dan desain penelitian
kualitatif longitudinal yang akan digunakan dalam penelitian
ini.

3. Is there congruity between the research methodology and the

methods used to collect data?
Apakah ada kesesuaian antara metodologi penelitian dan
metode yang digunakan untuk mengumpulkan data?
Ya
Metodologi penelitian:
Dalam peelitian menggunakan crosssectional awal dan desain
penelitian kualitatif longitudinal yang akan digunakan dalam
penelitian ini dengan wawancara semi-terstruktur.

Metode pengumpulan data:

Wawancara dipandu oleh jadwal wawancara semi-terstruktur
yang mengeksplorasi persepsi peserta tentang perubahan
dalam kesinambungan perawatan, risiko/manfaat yang
□ □ □ □
dirasakan dari metode pemberian perawatan baru, kebutuhan
informasi, dan kekhawatiran tentang kanker yang berkaitan
dengan COVID-19.

Wawancara telepon semi-terstruktur dibagi menjadi 3 jadwal

yaitu T1, T2 dan T3 yang mencakup item tambahan.
1. Mengeksplorasi perspektif peserta tentang pengaruh
faktor kontekstual dan lingkungan terhadap penderitaan,
ketahanan, dan pengalaman mereka terhadap kanker,
2. Menginterogasi hasil fase sebelumnya secara lebih
mendalam
3. Mengevaluasi evolusi keprihatinan dan kebutuhan
individu selama masa studi.

4. Is there congruity between the research methodology and the

representation and analysis of data? Apakah ada kesesuaian
antara metodologi penelitian dan representasi dan analisis
data?
Ya.
Analisis data kualitatif yang dihasilkan dalam penelitian ini
berpedoman pada Braun and Clarke Thematic Analysis □ □ □ □
Framework dan dikelola di NVIVO 12.
kualitatif dianalisis secara crosssectional pada setiap titik
waktu untuk menghasilkan ringkasan analisis tematik cross-
sectional, yang akan menjadi dasar untuk member checking,
dan menginformasikan panduan wawancara di T2 dan T3.

© JBI, 2020. All rights reserved. JBI grants use of these Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research - 4
tools for research purposes only. All other enquiries
should be sent to jbisynthesis@adelaide.edu.au.
5. Is there congruity between the research methodology and the
interpretation of results? Apakah ada kesesuaian antara
metodologi penelitian dan interpretasi hasil?
Ya.
Hasil:
Peserta melaporkan tingkat kesusahan yang rendah dan
rata-rata tingkat ketahanan yang sedang hingga tinggi. Tiga
tema dihasilkan dari analisis fase pertama wawancara cross-
sectional. Peserta menggambarkan keseimbangan antara
berhati-hati terhadap infeksi dan menjaga keamanan melalui
strategi pencegahan dan perlindungan. Meskipun rumah sakit
merasa aman dan bekerja secara efisien, beberapa peserta □ □ □ □
merasa COVID-19 telah mengganggu keterpusatan pada
orang dan empati dalam perawatan. Sementara peserta
menghargai langkah-langkah yang diambil untuk
meminimalkan risiko infeksi, penggantian janji tatap muka
dengan layanan telehealth dan menghadiri janji tatap muka
saja membatasi akses peserta ke dukungan profesional dan
sosial. Meskipun ini,

Karakteristik sampel: Enam belas peserta direkrut untuk

penelitian ini dan diwawancarai pada Januari 2021 (T1).
Semua setuju untuk diwawancarai kembali di T2 dan T3.

6. Is there a statement locating the researcher culturally or

theoretically? Apakah ada pernyataan yang menempatkan
peneliti secara kultural atau teoretis?
Ya.
Konteks sosial-politik dan sosial-budaya COVID-19 di Irlandia
selama wawancara T1:
Pada saat wawancara T1, Irlandia memiliki tingkat infeksi
COVID-19 tertinggi secara internasional dan telah memasuki
penguncian ketiga sejak Maret 2020.
Suasana hati bangsa telah berubah menjadi ketakutan;
laporan anekdotal dari layanan kanker menyoroti
meningkatnya permintaan untuk dukungan kanker □ □ □ □
psikososial.
Selama periode pengumpulan data T1, kematian harian
mencapai titik tertinggi di Irlandia sejak pandemi dimulai.
Pada saat wawancara T1 terakhir pada 17 Februari 2021,
orang-orang di atas usia 85 yang tinggal di komunitas mulai
menerima vaksinasi pertama mereka. Pada saat ini, jumlah
orang dengan COVID-19 di unit perawatan intensif juga
menurun.

© JBI, 2020. All rights reserved. JBI grants use of these Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research - 5
tools for research purposes only. All other enquiries
should be sent to jbisynthesis@adelaide.edu.au.
7. Is the influence of the researcher on the research, and vice-
versa, addressed? Apakah pengaruh peneliti pada penelitian,
dan sebaliknya, ditangani?
□ □ □ □
Belum terlihat adanya pengaruh peneliti pada penelitian, dan
sebaliknya, ditangani

8. Are participants, and their voices, adequately represented?

Apakah peserta, dan suara mereka, cukup terwakili?
Ya.
Enam belas peserta setuju untuk berpartisipasi. Wawancara
dipandu oleh jadwal wawancara semi-terstruktur yang
mengeksplorasi persepsi peserta tentang perubahan dalam □ □ □ □
kesinambungan perawatan, risiko/manfaat yang dirasakan
dari metode pemberian perawatan baru, kebutuhan informasi,
dan kekhawatiran tentang kanker yang berkaitan dengan
COVID-19.

9. Is the research ethical according to current criteria or, for

recent studies, and is there evidence of ethical approval by
an appropriate body? Apakah penelitian etis sesuai dengan
kriteria saat ini atau, untuk penelitian terbaru, dan apakah
ada bukti persetujuan etis oleh badan yang sesuai?
Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian terbaru yang dilakukan
selama masa pndemi covid-19 pada bulan Januari sampai
bulan Mei tahun 2021 jurnal ini dipublish.

Penelitian ini diterbitkan oleh Elsevier Ltd (salah satu

penyedia informasi ilmiah, teknis, dan medis terbesar di dunia
dan perusahaan teknologi yang didirikan tahun 1880.
Elsevier sekarang bagian dari RELX Group. Sebelum tahun
2015, Elsevier bernama Reed Elsevier. Elsevier menerbitkan □ □ □ □
sekitar 400.000 artikel per tahun di 2.500 jurnal).

Di dalam jurnal tertera artikel ini merupakan artikel akses

terbuka di bawah lisensi CC BY (Lisensi Creative
Commons) yaitu penyedia standar guna
memberikan izin kepada orang lain untuk
menggunakan karyanya yang artinya memegang Hak
Cipta (izin tertulis yang diberikan oleh pemegang
hak cipta atau pemilik hak terkait kepada pihak
lain untuk melaksanakan hak ekonomi atas
ciptaannya atau produk hak terkait dengan syarat
tertentu)

□ □ □ □
10. Do the conclusions drawn in the research report flow from the
analysis, or interpretation, of the data? Apakah kesimpulan
yang ditarik dalam laporan penelitian mengalir dari analisis,

© JBI, 2020. All rights reserved. JBI grants use of these Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research - 6
tools for research purposes only. All other enquiries
should be sent to jbisynthesis@adelaide.edu.au.
 atau interpretasi, data?
Ya.
Kesimpulan diambil beradasarkan hasil dari interpretasi data
dan hasil analisis yaitu:
Hasil cross-sectional dari fase pertama studi penelitian
kualitatif longitudinal ini memberikan wawasan tentang
kompleksitas hidup dengan atau setelah kanker selama
pandemi COVID-19. Studi ini menyoroti peluang penggunaan
penelitian kualitatif longitudinal untuk mengeksplorasi
pengalaman yang berkembang, kekhawatiran, dan informasi
serta kebutuhan klinis yang terus-menerus dan muncul dalam
konteks sosial-politik dan sosial-budaya yang berubah
dengan cepat dari pandemi COVID-19.

Overall appraisal: Include □ Exclude □ Seek further info □

Comments (Including reason for exclusion)

________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________

© JBI, 2020. All rights reserved. JBI grants use of these Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research - 7
tools for research purposes only. All other enquiries
should be sent to jbisynthesis@adelaide.edu.au.
DISCUSSION OF CRITICAL APPRAISAL CRITERIA
How to cite: Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K. Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for
systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):179–187.

1. Congruity between the stated philosophical perspective and the research methodology

Does the report clearly state the philosophical or theoretical premises on which the study is
based? Does the report clearly state the methodological approach adopted on which the
study is based? Is there congruence between the two? For example:

A report may state that the study adopted a critical perspective and participatory action
research methodology was followed. Here there is congruence between a critical view
(focusing on knowledge arising out of critique, action and reflection) and action research (an
approach that focuses on firstly working with groups to reflect on issues or practices, then
considering how they could be different; then acting to create a change; and finally identifying
new knowledge arising out of the action taken). However, a report may state that the study
adopted an interpretive perspective and used survey methodology. Here there is
incongruence between an interpretive view (focusing on knowledge arising out of studying
what phenomena mean to individuals or groups) and surveys (an approach that focuses on
asking standard questions to a defined study population); a report may state that the study
was qualitative or used qualitative methodology (such statements do not demonstrate rigour
in design) or make no statement on philosophical orientation or methodology.

2. Congruity between the research methodology and the research question or objectives

Is the study methodology appropriate for addressing the research question? For example:
A report may state that the research question was to seek understandings of the meaning of
pain in a group of people with rheumatoid arthritis and that a phenomenological approach
was taken. Here, there is congruity between this question and the methodology. A report may
state that the research question was to establish the effects of counselling on the severity of
pain experience and that an ethnographic approach was pursued. A question that tries to
establish cause-and effect cannot be addressed by using an ethnographic approach (as
ethnography sets out to develop understandings of cultural practices) and thus, this would be
incongruent.

© JBI, 2020. All rights reserved. JBI grants use of these Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research - 8
tools for research purposes only. All other enquiries
should be sent to jbisynthesis@adelaide.edu.au.
3. Congruity between the research methodology and the methods used to collect data

Are the data collection methods appropriate to the methodology? For example:

A report may state that the study pursued a phenomenological approach and data was
collected through phenomenological interviews. There is congruence between the
methodology and data collection; a report may state that the study pursued a
phenomenological approach and data was collected through a postal questionnaire. There is
incongruence between the methodology and data collection here as phenomenology seeks to
elicit rich descriptions of the experience of a phenomena that cannot be achieved through
seeking written responses to standardized questions.

4. Congruity between the research methodology and the representation and analysis of data

Are the data analyzed and represented in ways that are congruent with the stated
methodological position? For example:

A report may state that the study pursued a phenomenological approach to explore people’s
experience of grief by asking participants to describe their experiences of grief. If the text
generated from asking these questions is searched to establish the meaning of grief to
participants, and the meanings of all participants are included in the report findings, then this
represents congruity; the same report may, however, focus only on those meanings that were
common to all participants and discard single reported meanings. This would not be
appropriate in phenomenological work.

5. There is congruence between the research methodology and the interpretation of results

Are the results interpreted in ways that are appropriate to the methodology? For example:

A report may state that the study pursued a phenomenological approach to explore people’s
experience of facial disfigurement and the results are used to inform practitioners about
accommodating individual differences in care. There is congruence between the methodology
and this approach to interpretation; a report may state that the study pursued a
phenomenological approach to explore people’s experience of facial disfigurement and the
results are used to generate practice checklists for assessment. There is incongruence
between the methodology and this approach to interpretation as phenomenology seeks to
understand the meaning of a phenomenon for the study participants and cannot be
interpreted to suggest that this can be generalized to total populations to a degree where
standardized assessments will have relevance across a population.

© JBI, 2020. All rights reserved. JBI grants use of these Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research - 9
tools for research purposes only. All other enquiries
should be sent to jbisynthesis@adelaide.edu.au.
6. Locating the researcher culturally or theoretically

Are the beliefs and values, and their potential influence on the study declared? For example:

The researcher plays a substantial role in the qualitative research process and it is important,
in appraising evidence that is generated in this way, to know the researcher’s cultural and
theoretical orientation. A high quality report will include a statement that clarifies this.

7. Influence of the researcher on the research, and vice-versa, is addressed

Is the potential for the researcher to influence the study and for the potential of the research
process itself to influence the researcher and her/his interpretations acknowledged and
addressed? For example:

Is the relationship between the researcher and the study participants addressed? Does the
researcher critically examine her/his own role and potential influence during data collection?
Is it reported how the researcher responded to events that arose during the study?

8. Representation of participants and their voices

Generally, reports should provide illustrations from the data to show the basis of their
conclusions and to ensure that participants are represented in the report.

9. Ethical approval by an appropriate body

A statement on the ethical approval process followed should be in the report.

10. Relationship of conclusions to analysis, or interpretation of the data

This criterion concerns the relationship between the findings reported and the views or words
of study participants. In appraising a paper, appraisers seek to satisfy themselves that the
conclusions drawn by the research are based on the data collected; data being the text
generated through observation, interviews or other processes.

© JBI, 2020. All rights reserved. JBI grants use of these Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research -
10
tools for research purposes only. All other enquiries
should be sent to jbisynthesis@adelaide.edu.au.