Data validity assessment
| Criteria* | |
| Credibility and authenticity | Six researchers (the authors) designed the research and reviewed the protocol used. Six researchers (three Māori, one Niuean and two NZ European) undertook the interviews, checked the transcripts against recordings and offered participants transcripts to review and correct. Emerging themes were tested by at least two researchers against transcripts and then peer-reviewed and discussed by the four researchers responsible for each priority group. |
| Criticality and integrity | We undertook and then compared independent analyses of the data and used the transcripts and recordings to test and clarify differing interpretations. |
| Explicitness | We developed clear coding frameworks enabling audits of the data classifications. |
| Vividness | We make extensive use of participants' own words to illustrate the themes identified and permutations within these. |
| Creativity | We employed multiple interviewers to correspond with participants' ethnicities and developed independent analyses to ensure each distinctive voice was represented. |
| Thoroughness | We continued sampling until data saturation had been achieved and took particular care in analysing the findings to ensure variations within and between each priority group were documented and explored. |
| Congruence | To ensure the sampling, protocol, data collection and interpretation were appropriate to the research question and the communities from which participants came, we involved researchers from all priority groups and consulted widely on the protocol design and data interpretation. |
| Sensitivity | The research was approved by an ethics administrator and we undertook consultation with an indigenous people's committee to check the cultural sensitivity of the study. |
↵* Based on Whittemore et al.17