Skip Navigation


International Journal for Quality in Health Care Advance Access originally published online on September 14, 2007
International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2007 19(6):349-357; doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/6/349    most recent
mzm042v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tong, A.
Right arrow Articles by Craig, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tong, A.
Right arrow Articles by Craig, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care; all rights reserved

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups

Allison Tong1,2, Peter Sainsbury1,3 and Jonathan Craig1,2

1 School of Public Health, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
2 Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia
3 Population Health, Sydney South West Area Health Service, NSW 2170, Australia

Address reprint requests to: Allison Tong, Centre for Kidney Research, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, NSW 2145, Australia. Tel: +61-2-9845-1482; Fax: +61-2-9845-1491; E-mail: allisont{at}health.usyd.edu.au, allisont{at}chw.edu.au


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Basic definitions
 Methods
 COREQ: content and rationale...
 Discussion
 References
 
Background. Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers. Although partial checklists are available, no consolidated reporting framework exists for any type of qualitative design.

Objective. To develop a checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (indepth interviews and focus groups).

Methods. We performed a comprehensive search in Cochrane and Campbell Protocols, Medline, CINAHL, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications for existing checklists used to assess qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. All items were grouped into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. Duplicate items and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined and impractical to assess were removed.

Results. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting.

Conclusions. The criteria included in COREQ, a 32-item checklist, can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.

Keywords: focus groups, interviews, qualitative research, research design

Qualitative research explores complex phenomena encountered by clinicians, health care providers, policy makers and consumers in health care. Poorly designed studies and inadequate reporting can lead to inappropriate application of qualitative research in decision-making, health care, health policy and future research.

Formal reporting guidelines have been developed for randomized controlled trials (CONSORT) [1], diagnostic test studies (STARD), meta-analysis of RCTs (QUOROM) [2], observational studies (STROBE) [3] and meta-analyses of observational studies (MOOSE) [4]. These aim to improve the quality of reporting these study types and allow readers to better understand the design, conduct, analysis and findings of published studies. This process allows users of published research to be more fuller informed when they critically appraise studies relevant to each checklist and decide upon applicability of research findings to their local settings. Empiric studies have shown that the use of the CONSORT statement is associated with improvements in the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials [5]. Systematic reviews of qualitative research almost always show that key aspects of study design are not reported, and so there is a clear need for a CONSORT-equivalent for qualitative research [6].

The Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals published by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) do not provide reporting guidelines for qualitative studies. Of all the mainstream biomedical journals (Fig. 1), only the British Medical Journal (BMJ) has criteria for reviewing qualitative research. However, the guidelines for authors specifically record that the checklist is not routinely used. In addition, the checklist is not comprehensive and does not provide specific guidance to assess some of the criteria. Although checklists for critical appraisal are available for qualitative research, there is no widely endorsed reporting framework for any type of qualitative research [7].


Figure 1
View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PowerPoint slide]
  		Figure 1 Development of the COREQ Checklist. *References [26, 27], {dagger}References [6, 28–32], {ddagger}Author and reviewer guidelines provided by BMJ, JAMA, Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, NEJM.

 
We have developed a formal reporting checklist for in-depth interviews and focus groups, the most common methods for data collection in qualitative health research. These two methods are particularly useful for eliciting patient and consumer priorities and needs to improve the quality of health care [8]. The checklist aims to promote complete and transparent reporting among researchers and indirectly improve the rigor, comprehensiveness and credibility of interview and focus-group studies.


   Basic definitions
Top
 Abstract
 Basic definitions
Methods
 COREQ: content and rationale...
 Discussion
 References
 
Qualitative studies use non-quantitative methods to contribute new knowledge and to provide new perspectives in health care. Although qualitative research encompasses a broad range of study methods, most qualitative research publications in health care describe the use of interviews and focus groups [8].

Interviews
In-depth and semi-structured interviews explore the experiences of participants and the meanings they attribute to them. Researchers encourage participants to talk about issues pertinent to the research question by asking open-ended questions, usually in one-to-one interviews. The interviewer might re-word, re-order or clarify the questions to further investigate topics introduced by the respondent. In qualitative health research, in-depth interviews are often used to study the experiences and meanings of disease, and to explore personal and sensitive themes. They can also help to identify potentially modifiable factors for improving health care [9].

Focus groups
Focus groups are semi-structured discussions with groups of 4–12 people that aim to explore a specific set of issues [10]. Moderators often commence the focus group by asking broad questions about the topic of interest, before asking the focal questions. Although participants individually answer the facilitator's questions, they are encouraged to talk and interact with each other [11]. This technique is built on the notion that the group interaction encourages respondents to explore and clarify individual and shared perspectives [12]. Focus groups are used to explore views on health issues, programs, interventions and research.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Basic definitions
 Methods
COREQ: content and rationale...
 Discussion
 References
 
Development of a checklist
Search strategy
We performed a comprehensive search for published checklists used to assess or review qualitative studies, and guidelines for reporting qualitative studies in: Medline (1966—Week 1 April 2006), CINAHL (1982—Week 3 April 2006), Cochrane and Campbell protocols, systematic reviews of qualitative studies, author or reviewer guidelines of major medical journals and reference lists of relevant publications. We identified the terms used to index the relevant articles already in our possession and performed a broad search using those search terms. The electronic databases were searched using terms and text words for research (standards), health services research (standards) and qualitative studies (evaluation). Duplicate checklists and detailed instructions for conducting and analysing qualitative studies were excluded.

Data extraction
From each of the included publications, we extracted all criteria for assessing or reporting qualitative studies. Seventy-six items from 22 checklists were compiled into a comprehensive list. We recorded the frequency of each item across all the publications. Items most frequently included in the checklists related to sampling method, setting for data collection, method of data collection, respondent validation of findings, method of recording data, description of the derivation of themes and inclusion of supporting quotations. We grouped all items into three domains: (i) research team and reflexivity, (ii) study design and (iii) data analysis and reporting. (see Tables 2–4)

Within each domain we simplified all relevant items by removing duplicates and those that were ambiguous, too broadly defined, not specific to qualitative research, or impractical to assess. Where necessary, the remaining items were rephrased for clarity. Based upon consensus among the authors, two new items that were considered relevant for reporting qualitative research were added. The two new items were identifying the authors who conducted the interview or focus group and reporting the presence of non-participants during the interview or focus group. The COREQ checklist for explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies consists of 32 criteria, with a descriptor to supplement each item (Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative studies (COREQ): 32-item checklist

 


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Items included in 22 published checklists: Research team and reflexivity domain

 


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3 Items included in 22 published checklists: Study design

 


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4 Items included in 22 published checklists: Analysis and reporting

 

   COREQ: content and rationale (see Tables 1)
Top
 Abstract
 Basic definitions
 Methods
 COREQ: content and rationale...
Discussion
 References
 
Domain 1: research team and reflexivity
(i) Personal characteristics: Qualitative researchers closely engage with the research process and participants and are therefore unable to completely avoid personal bias. Instead researchers should recognize and clarify for readers their identity, credentials, occupation, gender, experience and training. Subsequently this improves the credibility of the findings by giving readers the ability to assess how these factors might have influenced the researchers' observations and interpretations [13–15].

(ii) Relationship with participants: The relationship and extent of interaction between the researcher and their participants should be described as it can have an effect on the participants' responses and also on the researchers' understanding of the phenomena [16]. For example, a clinician–researcher may have a deep understanding of patients' issues but their involvement in patient care may inhibit frank discussion with patient–participants when patients believe that their responses will affect their treatment. For transparency, the investigator should identify and state their assumptions and personal interests in the research topic.

Domain 2: study design
(i) Theoretical framework: Researchers should clarify the theoretical frameworks underpinning their study so readers can understand how the researchers explored their research questions and aims. Theoretical frameworks in qualitative research include: grounded theory, to build theories from the data; ethnography, to understand the culture of groups with shared characteristics; phenomenology, to describe the meaning and significance of experiences; discourse analysis, to analyse linguistic expression; and content analysis, to systematically organize data into a structured format [10].

(ii) Participant selection: Researchers should report how participants were selected. Usually purposive sampling is used which involves selecting participants who share particular characteristics and have the potential to provide rich, relevant and diverse data pertinent to the research question [13, 17]. Convenience sampling is less optimal because it may fail to capture important perspectives from difficult-to-reach people [16]. Rigorous attempts to recruit participants and reasons for non-participation should be stated to reduce the likelihood of making unsupported statements [18]. Researchers should report the sample size of their study to enable readers to assess the diversity of perspectives included.

(iii) Setting: Researchers should describe the context in which the data were collected because it illuminates why participants responded in a particular way. For instance, participants might be more reserved and feel disempowered talking in a hospital setting. The presence of non-participants during interviews or focus groups should be reported as this can also affect the opinions expressed by participants. For example, parent interviewees might be reluctant to talk on sensitive topics if their children are present. Participant characteristics, such as basic demographic data, should be reported so readers can consider the relevance of the findings and interpretations to their own situation. This also allows readers to assess whether perspectives from different groups were explored and compared, such as patients and health care providers [13, 19].

(iv) Data collection: The questions and prompts used in data collection should be provided to enhance the readers' understanding of the researcher's focus and to give readers the ability to assess whether participants were encouraged to openly convey their viewpoints. Researchers should also report whether repeat interviews were conducted as this can influence the rapport developed between the researcher and participants and affect the richness of data obtained. The method of recording the participants' words should be reported. Generally, audio recording and transcription more accurately reflect the participants' views than contemporaneous researcher notes, more so if participants checked their own transcript for accuracy [19–21]. Reasons for not audio recording should be provided. In addition, field notes maintain contextual details and non-verbal expressions for data analysis and interpretation [19, 22]. Duration of the interview or focus group should be reported as this affects the amount of data obtained. Researchers should also clarify whether participants were recruited until no new relevant knowledge was being obtained from new participants (data saturation) [23, 24].

Domain 3: analysis and findings
(i) Data analysis: Specifying the use of multiple coders or other methods of researcher triangulation can indicate a broader and more complex understanding of the phenomenon. The credibility of the findings can be assessed if the process of coding (selecting significant sections from participant statements), and the derivation and identification of themes are made explicit. Descriptions of coding and memoing demonstrate how the researchers perceived, examined and developed their understanding of the data [17, 19]. Researchers sometimes use software packages to assist with storage, searching and coding of qualitative data. In addition, obtaining feedback from participants on the research findings adds validity to the researcher's interpretations by ensuring that the participants' own meanings and perspectives are represented and not curtailed by the researchers' own agenda and knowledge [23].

(ii) Reporting: If supporting quotations are provided, researchers should include quotations from different participants to add transparency and trustworthiness to their findings and interpretations of the data [17]. Readers should be able to assess the consistency between the data presented and the study findings, including the both major and minor themes. Summary findings, interpretations and theories generated should be clearly presented in qualitative research publications.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Basic definitions
 Methods
 COREQ: content and rationale...
 Discussion
References
 
The COREQ checklist was developed to promote explicit and comprehensive reporting of qualitative studies (interviews and focus groups). The checklist consists of items specific to reporting qualitative studies and precludes generic criteria that are applicable to all types of research reports. COREQ is a comprehensive checklist that covers necessary components of study design, which should be reported. The criteria included in the checklist can help researchers to report important aspects of the research team, study methods, context of the study, findings, analysis and interpretations.

At present, we acknowledge there is no empiric basis that shows that the introduction of COREQ will improve the quality of reporting of qualitative research. However this is no different than when CONSORT, QUOROM and other reporting checklists were introduced. Subsequent research has shown that these checklists have improved the quality of reporting of study types relevant to each checklist [5, 25], and we believe that the effect of COREQ is likely to be similar. Despite differences in the objectives and methods of quantitative and qualitative methods, the underlying aim of transparency in research methods and, at the least, the theoretical possibility of the reader being able to duplicate the study methods should be the aims of both methodological approaches. There is a perception among research funding agencies, clinicians and policy makers, that qualitative research is ‘second class’ research. Initiatives like COREQ are designed to encourage improvement in the quality of reporting of qualitative studies, which will indirectly lead to improved conduct, and greater recognition of qualitative research as inherently equal scientific endeavor compared with quantitative research that is used to assess the quality and safety of health care. We invite readers to comment on COREQ to improve the checklist.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Basic definitions
 Methods
 COREQ: content and rationale...
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA (2001) 285:1987–91.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  2. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet (1999) 354:1896–900.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  3. STROBE Statement. Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology. http://www.strobe-statement.org/Checkliste.html.

  4. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA (2000) 283:2008–12.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  5. Moher D, Jones A, Lepage L. Use of the CONSORT Statement and quality of reports of randomized trials. A comparative before-and-after evaluation. JAMA (2001) 285:1992–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  6. Mills E, Jadad AR, Ross C, et al. Systematic review of qualitative studies exploring parental beliefs and attitudes toward childhood vaccination identified common barriers to vaccination. J Clin Epidemiol (2005) 58:1081–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  7. Knafl KA, Howard NJ. Interpreting and reporting qualitative research. Res Nurs Health (1984) 7:7–14.

  8. Sofaer S. Qualitative research methods. Int J Qual Health Care (2002) 14:329–36.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  9. Wright EB, Holcombe C, Salmon P. Doctor's communication of trust, care, and respect in breast cancer: qualitative study. BMJ (2004) 328:864–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  10. Liamputtong P, Ezzy D. Qualitative Research Methods. (2005) 2nd edn. Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press.

  11. Krueger RA, Casey MA. Focus Groups. A Practical Guide for Applied Research. (2000) Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.

  12. Morgan DL. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. (1988) Newbury Park, California: Sage.

  13. Giacomini MK, Cook DJ. Users' guides to the medical literature XXIII. Qualitative research in health care. A. Are the results of the study valid? JAMA (2000) 284:357–62.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  14. Malterud K. Qualitative research:standards challenges guidelines. Lancet (2001) 358:483–8.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  15. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care: assessing quality in qualitative research. BMJ (2000) 320:50–2.[Free Full Text]

  16. Elder NC, William L. Reading and evaluating qualitative research studies. J Fam Pract (1995) 41:279–85.[Web of Science][Medline]

  17. Cote L, Turgeon J. Appraising qualitative research articles in medicine and medical education. Med Teach (2005) 27:71–5.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  18. Altheide D, Johnson J. Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In: Handbook of Qualitative Research.—Denzin N, Lincoln Y, eds. (1994) Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.

  19. Fossey E, Harvey C, McDermott F, et al. Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Aust N Z J Psychiatry (2002) 36:717–32.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  20. Seale C, Silverman S. Ensuring rigour in qualitative research. Eur J Public Health (1997) 7:379–84.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  21. Scheff T. Single case analysis in the health sciences. Eur J Public Health (1995) 5:72–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  22. Bluff R. Evaluating qualitative research. Br J Midwifery (1997) 5:232–5.

  23. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  24. Blumer H. Critiques of Research, in the Social Sciences. (1979) New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

  25. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-anlyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care (2005) 9:575–82.[CrossRef]

  26. Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) 10 Questions to help you make sense of qualitative research: Milton Keynes Primary Care Trust. (2002).

  27. Spencer L, Ritchie J, Lewis J, et al. Government Chief Social Researcher's Office. In: Quality in Qualitative Evaluation: A Framework for Assessing Research Evidence (2003) London: Cabinet Office.

  28. Campbell R, Pound P, Pope C, et al. Evaluating meta-ethnography: a synthesis of qualitative research on lay experience of diabetes and diabetes care. Soc Sci Med (2003) 56:671–84.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  29. Feder GS, Hutson M, Ramsay I, et al. Women exposed to intimate partner violence: expectations and experiences when they encounter health care professionals: a meta-analysis of qualitative studies. Arch Intern Med (2006) 166:22–37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  30. Pound P, Britten N, Morgan M, et al. Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Soc Sci Med (2005) 61:133–55.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  31. Smith LK, Pope C, Botha JL. Patients' help-seeking experiences and delay in cancer presentation: a qualitative synthesis. Lancet (2005) 366:825–31.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]

  32. Walter FM, Emery J, Braithwaite D, et al. Lay understanding of familial risk of common chronic diseases: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research. Ann Fam Med (2004) 2:583–94.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  33. Inui TS, Frankel RM. Evaluating the quality of qualitative research: a proposal pro-term. J Gen Intern Med (1991) 6:485–6.[Web of Science][Medline]

  34. Boulton M, Fitzpatrick R, Swinburn C. J Eval Clin Pract (1996) 2. Qualitative research in health care: II A structured review and evaluation of studies. 171–9.[Medline]

  35. Dixon-Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, et al. The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care (2004) 13:223–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  36. Hoddinott P, Pill R. A review of recently published qualitative research in general practice. More methodological questions than answers? Fam Pract (1997) 14:313–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  37. Kuzel AJ, Engel JD, Addison RB, et al. Desirable features of qualitative research. Fam Pract Res J (1994) 14:369–78.[Medline]

  38. Treloar C, Champness S, Simpson PL, et al. Critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research studies. Indian J Pediatr (2000) 67:347–51.[Medline]

  39. Cesario S, Morin K, Santa-Donato A. Evaluating the level of evidence in qualitative research. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs (2001) 31:708–14.[Web of Science]

Accepted for publication July 7, 2007.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
19/6/349    most recent
mzm042v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tong, A.
Right arrow Articles by Craig, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tong, A.
Right arrow Articles by Craig, J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?