Yasin raises a good point in another thread... on the one hand it seems like a good thing that authors say that they checked "quality and consistency" (see p189, under Method), but on the other hand they don't actually say what that checking 'quality and consistency' involved!
In this paper, they seem to be referring to quality and consistency of interviews and I suspect they focused on whether the interviewers were asking the same questions in the same way/order. But have they given readers enough information? Do they do enough to address 'quality and consistency'?
If you're feeling keen, you might like to look at a paper in the BMJ on quality and qualitative research: Mays N, and Pope C (2000) Assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ, 320: 50–2.
