| Phase 2: deciding what is relevant | 17 | A statement(s) regarding the choice of overall search strategy is given (e.g. how this was informed by review purpose and intended audience) | 10 (52.6) | 9 (47.3) |
| 18 | Details on the electronic database(s) search strategies used (e.g. thesaurus, free text and broad-based terms) | 13 (68.4) | 6 (31.5) |
| 19 | Details on the electronic databases searched | 19 (100) | 0 (0) |
| 20 | Details on the searching approach(es) used (e.g. comprehensive, purposive or combined) | 19 (100) | 0 (0) |
| 21 | Details on the alternative searching methods (e.g. if e-databases were not used) | 5 (26.3) | 14 (73.6) |
| 22 | Details of all the data search processes and procedures including number of reviewer(s) involved in literature searching | 6 (31.5) | 13 (68.4) |
| 23 | Details of all the data search processes and procedures including which reviewer(s) were involved in literature searching | 5 (26.3) | 14 (73.6) |
| 24 | Details of all the data search processes and procedures including whether or not reviewers worked independently and then collaboratively to review searching decisions | 6 (31.5) | 13 (68.4) |
| 25 | Details of all the data search processes and procedures including if complementary searching conducted (e.g. hand and/or internet searches and/or original authors were contacted) | 17 (89.4) | 2 (10.5) |
| 26 | Details of all the data search processes and procedures including years data search covered | 16 (84.2) | 3 (15.7) |
| 27 | Details of all the data search processes and procedures including rationale for years data search covered | 6 (31.5) | 13 (68.4) |
| 28 | Details of all the data search processes and procedures including time period over which searches were conducted (e.g. weeks/months that reviewers took to search for studies) | 4 (21.0) | 15 (78.9) |
| 29 | Details of all the data search processes and procedures including whether or not potential studies were screened by titles and abstracts prior to reading full texts | 15 (78.9) | 4 (21.0) |
| 30 | Details of all the data search processes and procedures including rationale for stopping searching is provided | 0 (0) | 19 (100) |
| 31 | Detailed study inclusion/exclusion criteria, for example whether or not:only peer-reviewed data or grey literature also used only traditional qualitative data (e.g. focus groups/interviews) or whether or not free-text survey data used too studies from different traditions/approaches/methods of inquiry included/excluded purely descriptive studies were excluded (i.e. those reporting only first order constructs) specific data/publication time periods were used studies were excluded on the basis of a specific context study inclusion/exclusion were based solely on study narrative or whether or not original authors were contacted for more information/data
| 19 (100) | 0 (0) |
| 32 | Explicit information on the number of qualitative studies found for inclusion in meta-ethnography | 18 (94.7) | 1 (5.2) |
| 33 | Explicit information on the number of studies actually synthesised | 19 (100) | 0 (0) |
| 34 | If initial searches were updated later, details are provided | 0 | – |
| 35 | Appropriate literature searching reporting formats (e.g. PRISMA, STARLITE89) if the meta-ethnography used comprehensive literature searches in the style of quantitative systematic reviews | 11 | – |
| 36 | If reviewers used a sample rather than all studies meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria: details of the type of sample (e.g. exhaustive or purposive) are provided | 3 | – |
| 37 | If reviewers used a sample rather than all studies meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria, a rationale for the type of sample used is given (e.g. only heterogeneous studies were included) | 3 | – |
| 38 | If the review limited included studies to a maximum (e.g. 50), the maximum number is clearly stated | 0 | – |
| 39 | If the review limited included studies to a maximum (e.g. 50), the rationale for this maximum number is stated | 0 | – |
| 40 | If the review limited included studies to a maximum (e.g. 50), studies excluded because maximum number was exceeded are identified | 0 | – |
| 41 | If included studies were quality appraised, the type of quality processes/tools/methods used are specified | 15 | – |
| 42 | If included studies were quality appraised, a rationale is given for the choice of quality assessment processes | 8 | – |
| 43 | If included studies were quality appraised, it is clear which reviewer(s) conducted the quality appraisal | 6 | – |
| 44 | If included studies were quality appraised, the outcome of any quality appraisal processes are provided | 13 | – |
| 45 | If included studies were quality appraised, any studies excluded following quality appraisal are clearly identified | 5 | – |
