Table 1 Tracy’s eight criteria of quality in qualitative research

Worthy topic

• Relevance with regard to societal events and priorities (e.g., lack of consensual definition on palliative sedation, legalization of assisted death)

• In line with recent literature on palliative sedation

Rich rigor

• In-depth focus group discussions

• Abundant and complex data

• Appropriate theoretical constructs

• Reflexive notes taken after each focus groups

• Transparency about data collection and data analysis

• Peer-discussions to deepen data analysis

Sincerity

• Reflexivity about preconceptions about palliative sedation and assisted death

• Reflexivity about the researchers’ credentials, leading to collaboration and peer discussions to reflect on learning and practice

• Transparency about methodological and theoretical assumptions

• Recognition of the study limitations

Credibility

• “Thick” descriptions (e.g., rich descriptions in line with data complexity, numerous quotes from participants)

• Immersion in the data to ascertain tacit knowledge

Resonance

• Evocative quotes leading to empathic resonance

• Transferable findings

Significant contribution

• Practical and heuristic significance of the study (e.g., extending phenomenological knowledge on palliative sedation in the context of various settings and in the context of legalized assisted death)

• Can lead to improve clinical practices

Ethics

• Ethics committee approval

• Relational ethics (e.g., consideration of interdependence between researchers and participants, from data collection to data analysis)

Meaningful coherence

• Questions, paradigm, method and analysis in line with Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)

• Interconnections between aims, literature, data and interpretations