Adolescents' screen time, sleep and mental health: literature review

Systematic review summarising the published experimental and longitudinal evidence on adolescent screen time, sleep and mental health.

Appendix Table C: NICE guideline check list for qualitative studies

Study identification: Include author, title, reference, year of publication

Checklist completed by:

Key research question/aim:

1. Is a qualitative approach appropriate? For example: Does the research question seek to understand processes or structures, or illuminate subjective experiences or meanings? Could a quantitative approach better have addressed the research question?

Ratings: Appropriate, Inappropriate Not Sure


2. Is the study clear in what it seeks to do? For example: Is the purpose of the study discussed – aims/objectives/research question/s? Is there adequate/appropriate reference to the literature? Are underpinning values/assumptions/theory discussed?

Ratings: Clear Unclear Mixed


3. How defensible/rigorous is the research design/methodology? For example: Is the design appropriate to the research question? Is a rationale given for using a qualitative approach? Are there clear accounts of the rationale/justification for the sampling, data collection and data analysis techniques used? Is the selection of cases/sampling strategy theoretically justified?

Ratings: Defensible Indefensible Not sure


4. How well was the data collection carried out? For example: Are the data collection methods clearly described? Were the appropriate data collected to address the research question? Was the data collection and record keeping systematic?

Ratings: Appropriately Inappropriately Not sure/ Inadequately reported


5. Is the role of the researcher clearly described? For example: Has the relationship between the researcher and the participants been adequately considered? Does the paper describe how the research was explained and presented to the participants?

Ratings: Clearly Described Unclear Not Described


6. Is the context clearly described? For example: Are the characteristics of the participants and settings clearly defined? Were observations made in a sufficient variety of circumstances? Was context bias considered?

Ratings: Clear Unclear Not Sure


7. Were the methods reliable? For example: Was data collected by more than 1 method? Is there justification for triangulation, or for not triangulating? Do the methods investigate what they claim to?

Ratings: Reliable Unreliable Not sure/ Not reported


8. Is the data analysis sufficiently rigorous? For example: Is the procedure explicit – i.e. is it clear how the data was analysed to arrive at the results? How systematic is the analysis, is the procedure reliable/dependable? Is it clear how the themes and concepts were derived from the data?

Ratings: Rigorous Not rigorous Not sure/not reported


9. Is the data 'rich'? For example: How well are the contexts of the data described? Has the diversity of perspective and content been explored? How well has the detail and depth been demonstrated? Are responses compared and contrasted across groups/sites?

Ratings: Rich Poor Not sure/not reported


10. Is the analysis reliable? For example: Did more than 1 researcher theme and code transcripts/data? If so, how were differences resolved? Did participants feed back on the transcripts/data if possible and relevant? Were negative/discrepant results addressed or ignored?

Ratings: Reliable Unreliable Not sure/ Not reported


11. Are the findings convincing? For example: Are the findings clearly presented? Are the findings internally coherent? Are extracts from the original data included? Are the data appropriately referenced? Is the reporting clear and coherent?

Ratings: Convincing Not convincing Not Sure


12. Are the findings relevant to the aims of the study?

Ratings: Relevance Irrelevant Partially relevant


13. Conclusions For example: How clear are the links between data, interpretation and conclusions? Are the conclusions plausible and coherent? Have alternative explanations been explored and discounted? Does this enhance understanding of the research topic? Are the implications of the research clearly defined? Is there adequate discussion of any limitations encountered?

Ratings: Adequate Inadequate Not sure

14. How clear and coherent is the reporting of ethics? For example: Have ethical issues been taken into consideration? Are they adequately discussed e.g. do they address consent and anonymity? Have the consequences of the research been considered i.e. raising expectations, changing behaviour? Was the study approved by an ethics committee?

Ratings: Appropriate Inappropriate Not sure/ nto reported

As far as can be ascertained from the paper, how well was the study conducted? (see guidance notes)

Rating: ++ + -



Back to top