Racine et al., 2013 | Larivière-Bastien et al., 2013 | Affdal et al., 2015 | |
---|---|---|---|
1. Abstract and titlea | Good | Fair: Abstract not structured but this could be because of the style of the journal. Key ethical constructs not mentioned | Good |
2. Introduction and aimsa | Good: Reasoned ethical argument and clear aim | Fair: Research questions clear but introduction not a systematic summary of the background literature | Good |
3. Method and dataa | Poor: Qualitative interview and questionnaire mentioned but no subsequent mention of questionnaire. Questionnaires/ interview schedule not included | Poor: Ostensively this is a study about ethics and the researchers have taken an inductive approach but present a deductive structure for their paper, even criticising themselves for generating hypotheses rather than confirming or refuting. Questionnaires/ interview schedule not included | Poor: The method did not fit with the aim of the study. Adolescents were not interviewed regarding their autonomy. No detail of analytic approach given |
4. Samplinga | Very poor: Description of sample but nothing about appropriate sample size or sampling strategy | Very poor: Description of sample but nothing about appropriate sample size or sampling strategy | Poor: Sampling strategy is absent. Very few participant details are given |
5. Data analysisa | Fair: Description of method but no respondent validation or triangulation | Fair: Description of method but no respondent validation or triangulation | Very poor: No details of the analytic approach are provided |
6. Ethics and biasa | Poor: Ethical approval for the study gained. Issues of confidentiality, approach to gaining consent to participate not mentioned although reader referred to more details about methodology in another paper. Relationship between researcher and participants not discussed | Poor: Ethical approval for the study gained but not sure from where. Issues of confidentiality, approach to gaining consent to participate not mentioned although reader referred to more details about methodology in another paper. Relationship between researcher and participants not discussed | Very poor: No reference is made to ethical permissions. Issues of confidentiality, approach to gaining consent to participate not mentioned |
7. Findings/resultsa | Good | Good | Fair |
8. Transferability/ generalizabilityab | Poor: Poor description of context. Poor score in 4 | Poor: Poor description of context. Poor score in 4 | Poor: Poor score in 4 |
9. Implications and usefulnessa | Fair: Some suggestions for changing practice and transition programs. No implications for further research | Fair: Some suggestions for changing practice. Mentions focus for further research | Fair: No suggestions for future research given |
Total (out of 36) | 25 | 23 | 22 |