Table 3 Methodological appraisal of included reports (n = 26)

Adherence between philosophical stance/theory and sample/methodology

Purpose and question related to theory or philosophical stance

25 (96%)

–

Participants

Sample appropriate to answer the question

24 (92%)

–

Recruitment method appropriately chosen and implemented

13 (50%)

–

Serious shortcomings affecting reliability

2 (8%)

20 (77%)

Data collection

Serious shortcomings in data collection affecting reliability

1 (4%)

16 (61%)

Analysis

Analysis appropriate and carried out in an appropriate manner

22 (85%)

–

Researchers reflexive when interpreting data

7 (27%)

1 (4%)

Interpretations validated

15 (58%)

5 (19%)

Serious shortcomings in analysis affecting reliability

1 (4%)

22 (85%)

Researchers

Researchers have any relationship with the participants

1 (4%)

7 (27%)

Researchers handled their preconceptions in an acceptable way

8 (31%)

1 (4%)

Researchers independent of financial or others conditions

13 (50%)

1 (4%)

Serious shortcomings affecting reliability

2 (8%)

15 (57%)

Coherence

Majority of the data used in the analysis

25 (96%)

–

Conflicting data handled appropriately

–

–

Collected data support the findings

25 (96%)

–

Serious weaknesses that can lead to a lack of coherence

–

24 (92%)

Sufficient data

Number of participants large enough

22 (85%)

–

Form of data collection allows opportunity for rich data

25 (96%)

–