Methodological quality assessment of the 13 included studies based on Critical Appraisal Skills Programme criteria

First author [ref.] (year)PopulationAimsQualitative methods appropriateConnection to theoretical frameworkRecruitment strategyData collectionReflexivityEthical issuesData analysisClear statement of findingsValue of researchTotal score#
Belkin [26] (2014)Caregivers111110.511119.5
Burnett [22] (2019)People with IPF1110.51111119.5
Duck [23] (2015)People with IPF and caregivers11110.50.511119
Graney [18] (2017)People with PF11110.50.510.5118.5
Graney [25] (2017)Caregivers1110.510.511119
Khor [19] (2017)People with ILD1110.51111119.5
Khor [30] (2017)Respiratory physicians1110.510.511119
Lindell [21] (2019)Any lung disease111111111110
Ramadurai [27] (2018)People with IPF and caregivers11110.5110.5119
Sampson [28] (2015)People with IPF and caregivers11110.50.510.5118.5
Schoenheit [20] (2011)People with IPF11110.5110.5119
Visca (2018)
People with fibrotic ILD and caregivers11110.50.510.5118.5

1: criterion completely met; 0.5: criterion partially met; 0: criterion not applicable, not met or not mentioned. IPF: idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; PF: pulmonary fibrosis; ILD: interstitial lung disease. #: scores of 9–10 are defined as high quality, scores 7.5–9 as moderate quality and <7.5 as low quality.