| Literature DB >> 33828362 |
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with hypertension often self-medicate and are increasingly purchasing their medications online. This study aimed to identify the medications and products used for hypertension offered by Indonesian online marketplaces and the availability of prescription-only antihypertensive medication on these platforms.Entities:
Keywords: Hypertension; Internet; online purchasing; self-medication; traditional medicines
Year: 2020 PMID: 33828362 PMCID: PMC8021050 DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_259_19
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Pharm Bioallied Sci ISSN: 0975-7406
Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist
| No. Item | Guide questions/description | Note/ Reported on Page # |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Inter viewer/ facilitator | Which author/s conducted the interview or focus group? | NA |
| 2. Credentials | What were the researcher’s credentials? e.g. PhD, MD | PhD |
| 3. Occupation | What was their occupation at the time of the study? | Senior lecturer- Universitas Islam Indonesia |
| 4. Gender | Was the researcher male or female? | F |
| 5. Experience and training | What experience or training did the researcher have? | Research methodology |
| 6. Relationship established | Was a relationship established prior to study commencement? | NA |
| 7. Participant knowledge of the interviewer | What did the participants know about the researcher? e.g. personal goals, reasons for doing the research | NA |
| 8. Interviewer characteristics | What characteristics were reported about the inter viewer/facilitator? e.g. bias, assumptions, reasons and interests in the research topic | NA |
| 9. Methodological orientation andTheory | What methodological orientation was stated to underpin the study? e.g. grounded theory, discourse analysis, ethnography, phenomenology, content analysis | Methods, the 1st paragraph |
| 10. Sampling | How were participants selected? e.g. purposive, convenience, consecutive, snowball | Methods, the 1st paragraph |
| 11. Method of approach | How were participants approached? e.g. face-to-face, telephone, mail, email | NA |
| 12. Sample size | How many participants were in the study? | Methods, the 1st paragraph |
| 13. Non- participation | How many people refused to participate or dropped out? Reasons? | NA |
| 14. Setting of data collection | Where was the data collected? e.g. home, clinic, workplace | Methods, the 1st paragraph |
| 15. Presence of non-participants | Was anyone else present besides the participants and researchers? | NA |
| 16. Description of sample | What are the important characteristics of the sample? e.g. demographic data, date | Methods, the 2nd paragraph |
| 17. Interview guide | Were questions, prompts, guides provided by the authors? Was it pilot tested? | NA |
| 18. Repeat interviews | Were repeat interviews carried out? If yes, how many? | NA |
| 19. Audio/visual recording | Did the research use audio or visual recording to collect the data? | Methods, the 3rd paragraph |
| 20. Field notes | Were field notes made during and/or after the inter view or focus group? | Methods, the 3rd paragraph |
| 21. Duration | What was the duration of the inter views or focus group? | NA |
| 22. Data saturation | Was data saturation discussed? | NA |
| 23. Transcripts returned | Were transcripts returned to participants for comment and/or correction? | NA |
| 24. Number of data coders | How many data coders coded the data? | Methods, the 3rd paragraph |
| 25. Description of the coding tree | Did authors provide a description of the coding tree? | NA |
| 26. Derivation of themes | Were themes identified in advance or derived from the data? | Methods, the 3rd paragraph |
| 27. Software | What software, if applicable, was used to manage the data? | NA |
| 28. Participant checking | Did participants provide feedback on the findings? | NA |
| 29. Quotations presented | Were participant quotations presented to illustrate the themes/findings? Was each quotation identified? e.g. participant number | Results |
| 30. Data and findings consistent | Was there consistency between the data presented and the findings? | Results |
| 31. Clarity of major themes | Were major themes clearly presented in the findings? | Results |
| 32. Clarity of minor themes | Is there a description of diverse cases or discussion of minor themes? | Results and Discussion. |
Adapted from Tong et al.[9]