Reporting of Qualitative Health Research

  • Allison TongEmail author
  • Jonathan C. Craig
Reference work entry


Transparent and comprehensive reporting can improve the reliability and value of research. Reporting guidelines have been developed for different quantitative research designs including CONSORT for randomized controlled trials, STROBE for observational studies, and PRISMA for systematic reviews. Only a few reporting guidelines are available for qualitative studies – such as the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Health Research (COREQ), which includes reporting items that address the research team and reflexivity, methodological framework, data collection, data analysis, and presentation of the findings. This chapter will address the current problems in reporting qualitative research, discuss the challenges of a standardized approach to reporting qualitative research, provide an overview of current reporting guidelines, propose principles for reporting the methods and findings of qualitative studies, and discuss strategies to improve the quality of reporting of qualitative health research.


Qualitative research Reporting guidelines Quality Publishing Interviews Focus groups 


  1. Altman D, Simera I. A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR network. J R Soc Med. 2016;109(2):67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson C. Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. Am J Pharm Educ. 2010;74(8):141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barbour RS. Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog? Br Med J. 2001;322(7294):1115–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradley E, Curry LA, Devers KJ. Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv Res. 2007;42(4):1758–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryant A, Charmaz K. The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2010.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen DJ, Crabtree BF. Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(4):331–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dalton J, Booth A, Noyes J, Sowden AJ. Potential value of systematic reviews of qualitative evidence in informing user-centered health and social care: findings from a descriptive overview. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R,. .. Van Der Weyden MB. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;292(11):1363–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dixon-Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, Smith JA. The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13:223–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dunt D, McKenzie R. Improving the quality of qualitative studies: do reporting guidelines have a place? Fam Pract. 2012;29(4):367–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elliot R, Fischer CT, Rennie DL. Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. Br J Clin Psychol. 1999;38:215–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Esposito N. From meaning to meaning: the influence of translation techniques on non-English focus group research. Qual Health Res. 2001;11(4):568–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garcia MC, Chapman JR, Shaw PJ, Gottlieb DJ, Ralph A, Craig JC, Tong A. Motivations, experiences, and perspectives of bone marrow and peripheral blood stem cell donors: thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19(7):1046–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giacomini MK, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature XXIII. Qualitative research in health care. A. Are the results of the study valid? J Am Med Assoc. 2000;284:357–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glasziou P, Altman D, Bossuyt P, Bouton I, Clarke M, Julious S, … Wagner E. Research: increasing value, reducing waste. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graffigna G, Bosio AC. The influence of setting on findings produced in qualitative healht research: a comparison between face-to-face and online discussion groups about HIV/AIDS. Int J Qual Methods. 2006;5(3):55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ireland L, Holloway I. Qualitative health research with children. Child Soc. 1996;10(2):155–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Irvine A. Duration, dominance and depth in telephone and face-to-face interviews: a comparative exploration. Int J Qual Methods. 2011;10(3):202–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W. Critically appraising qualitative research. Br Med J. 2008;337:a1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liamputtong P. Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. London: Sage; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liamputtong P. Performing qualitative cross-cultural research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 4th ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  23. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage; 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mays N, Pope C. Assessing quality in qualitative research. Br Med J. 2000;320(7226):50–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mays N, Pope C. Quality in qualitative health research. In: Pope C, Mays N, editors. Qualitative research in health care. UK: Blackwell; 2006.Google Scholar
  26. Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Simera I, Wager E. Guidelines for reporting health research. West Sussex: Wiley; 2014.Google Scholar
  27. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2015.Google Scholar
  29. Popay J, Rogers A, Williams G. Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qual Health Res. 1998;8:341–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Punch S. Research with children. Childhood. 2002;9(3):321–41.Google Scholar
  31. Ring N, Ritchie K, Mandava L, Jepson R. A guide to synthesising qualitative research for researchers undertaking health technology assessments and systematic reviews. Scotland: NHS Quality Improvement Scotland; 2011.Google Scholar
  32. Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. Eur J Clin Investig. 2010;40(1):35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, Yazdi F, Turner L, Thielman J, et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. Br Med J. 2014;348:g3804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sumpton D, Thakkar V, O’Neill S, Singh-Grewal D, Craig JC, Tong A. “It’s not me, it’s not really me”. Insights from patients on living with systematic sclerosis: an interview study. Arthirtis Care Res. 2017;69:1733–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig JC. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tong A, Lowe A, Sainsbury P, Craig JC. Experiences of parents who have children with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Pediatrics. 2008;121(2):349–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig JC. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Twinn S. An exploratory study examining the influence of translation on the validity and reliability of qualitative data in nursing research. J Adv Nurs. 1997;26(2):418–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wolcott HF. Writing up qualitative research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yardley L. Dilemmas in qualitative health research. Psychol Health. 2000;15(2):215–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sydney School of Public HealthThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Kidney ResearchThe Children’s Hospital at WestmeadSydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Centre for Kidney ResearchThe Children’s Hospital at WestmeadWestmeadAustralia

Personalised recommendations