종양관련 질적연구 보고 표준에 대한 문헌분석
Literature Analysis on Reporting Standards for Qualitative Research in Cancer-related Studies
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: This study is a literature analysis conducted to compare the reporting standards for qualitative research (COREQ and SRQR) and analyzed the application reporting standards through an analysis of articles in journals. Methods: The study compared the items of COREQ and SRQR, and original texts of 39 qualitative research articles published in Asian Oncology Nursing were analyzed the extent of reporting for COREQ items with frequency and percentages. Results: COREQ was found to be deficient of ethical issues, the value of research, and limitations. The extent of reporting for COREQ items in the analyzed articles ranged from 12 items to 24 items, with 92.3% of articles reporting 17~24 items. Most items in study design and analysis and findings were reported. However, there was a lack of reporting on the researchers’ theoretical concepts and reflections. Conclusion: The results of this study can be shared with peer-reviewers to help establish adequate criteria for qualitative review. COREQ can serve as a guide to enhance the quality of qualitative research, but researchers should distinguished essential elements that must be included in qualitative research reporting standards and exercised flexible thinking that considers the epistemological diversity of qualitative research.
Abstract
Purpose: This study is a literature analysis conducted to compare the reporting standards for qualitative research (COREQ and SRQR) and analyzed the application reporting standards through an analysis of articles in journals. Methods: The study compared the items of COREQ and SRQR, and original texts of 39 qualitative research articles published in Asian Oncology Nursing were analyzed the extent of reporting for COREQ items with frequency and percentages. Results: COREQ was found to be deficient of ethical issues, the value of research, and limitations. The extent of reporting for COREQ items in the analyzed articles ranged from 12 items to 24 items, with 92.3% of articles reporting 17~24 items. Most items in study design and analysis and findings were reported. However, there was a lack of reporting on the researchers’ theoretical concepts and reflections. Conclusion: The results of this study can be shared with peer-reviewers to help establish adequate criteria for qualitative review. COREQ can serve as a guide to enhance the quality of qualitative research, but researchers should distinguished essential elements that must be included in qualitative research reporting standards and exercised flexible thinking that considers the epistemological diversity of qualitative research.
참고문헌 (19)
- Tong A, "Horses for courses : promoting transparent reporting of qualitative research in AJKD", Am J Kidney Dis, 63, pp.1~3 (2014)
- Rendle KA, "Beyond exploratory : a tailored framework for designing and assessing qualitative health research", BMJ Open, 9, pp.e030123~ (2019)
- Carroll C, "Quality assessment of qualitative evidence for systematic review and synthesis : is it meaningful, and if so, how should it be performed?", Res Synth Methods, 6, pp.149~154 (2015)
- Pearson A, "Notions of quality and standards for qualitative research reporting", Int J Nurs Pract, 21, pp.670~676 (2015)
- Lewin S, "Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions : an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses(GRADE-CERQual)", PLoS Med, 12, pp.e1001895~ (2015)
- Dossett LA, "SRQR and COREQ reporting guidelines for qualitative studies", JAMA Surg, 156, pp.875~876 (2021)
- Walsh S, "Adherence to COREQ reporting guidelines for qualitative research : a scientometric study in nursing social science", Int J Qual Methods, 19, pp.1~9 (2020)
- Lincoln YS, "Naturalistic inquiry" (1985), Sage
- Sandelowski M, "The problem of rigor in qualitative research", ANS Adv Nurs Sci, 8, pp.27~37 (1986)
- Tong A, "Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research(COREQ) : a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups", Int J Qual Health Care, 19, pp.349~357 (2007)
- Johnson JL, "Qualitative research in pharmacy education : a review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research", Am J Pharm Educ, 84, pp.138~146 (2020)
- "Equator network’s web site"[URL]
- O’Brien BC, "Standards for reporting qualitative research : a synthesis of recommendations", Acad Med, 89, pp.1245~1251 (2014)
- Peditto K, "Reporting qualitative research : Standards, challenges, and implications for health design", HERD, 11, pp.16~19 (2018)
- Cohen DJ, "Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care : controversies and recommendations", Ann Fam Med, 6, pp.331~339 (2008)
- Buus N, "The quality of quality criteria : replicating the development of the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research(COREQ)", Int J Nurs Stud, 102, pp.103452~ (2020)
- O’Kane P, "Building transparency and trustworthiness in inductive research through computer-aided qualitative data analysis software", Organ Res Methods, 24, pp.104~139 (2021)
- Dalkin S, "Using computer assisted qualitative data analysis software(CAQDAS; NVivo)to assist in the complex process of realist theory generation, refinement and testing", Int J Soc Res Methodol, 24, pp.123~134 (2021)
- Levitt HM, "Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology : the APA Publications and Communications Board task force report", Am Psychol, 73, pp.26~46 (2018)