standards for reporting qualitative research (srqr) guidelines

Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research

• Courses & events
• Librarian Network
• Search for reporting guidelines

Use your browser's Back button to return to your search results

Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations

Reporting guidelines for main study types, translations.

Some reporting guidelines are also available in languages other than English. Find out more in our Translations section .

• About the Library

For information about Library scope and content, identification of reporting guidelines and inclusion/exclusion criteria please visit About the Library .

Visit our Help page for information about searching for reporting guidelines and for general information about using our website.

Library index

• What is a reporting guideline?
• Browse reporting guidelines by specialty
• Reporting guidelines under development
• Translations of reporting guidelines
• EQUATOR Network reporting guideline manual
• Reporting guidelines for animal research
• Guidance on scientific writing
• Guidance developed by editorial groups
• Research funders’ guidance on reporting requirements
• Professional medical writing support
• Research ethics, publication ethics and good practice guidelines
• Links to other resources

• Download PDF
• Share X Facebook Email LinkedIn
• Permissions

SRQR and COREQ Reporting Guidelines for Qualitative Studies

• 1 Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
• 2 Institute for Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
• 3 Department of Emergency Medicine, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
• 4 Statistical Editor, JAMA Surgery
• 5 Web and Social Media Editor, JAMA Surgery
• Editorial Effective Use of Reporting Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Surgical Research Benjamin S. Brooke, MD, PhD; Amir A. Ghaferi, MD, MSc; Melina R. Kibbe, MD JAMA Surgery
• Guide to Statistics and Methods SQUIRE Reporting Guidelines for Quality Improvement Studies Rachel R. Kelz, MD, MSCE, MBA; Todd A. Schwartz, DrPH; Elliott R. Haut, MD, PhD JAMA Surgery
• Guide to Statistics and Methods STROBE Reporting Guidelines for Observational Studies Amir A. Ghaferi, MD, MS; Todd A. Schwartz, DrPH; Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, MPH, PhD JAMA Surgery
• Guide to Statistics and Methods CHEERS Reporting Guidelines for Economic Evaluations Oluwadamilola M. Fayanju, MD, MA, MPHS; Jason S. Haukoos, MD, MSc; Jennifer F. Tseng, MD, MPH JAMA Surgery
• Guide to Statistics and Methods TRIPOD Reporting Guidelines for Diagnostic and Prognostic Studies Rachel E. Patzer, PhD, MPH; Amy H. Kaji, MD, PhD; Yuman Fong, MD JAMA Surgery
• Guide to Statistics and Methods ISPOR Reporting Guidelines for Comparative Effectiveness Research Nader N. Massarweh, MD, MPH; Jason S. Haukoos, MD, MSc; Amir A. Ghaferi, MD, MS JAMA Surgery
• Guide to Statistics and Methods PRISMA Reporting Guidelines for Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews Shipra Arya, MD, SM; Amy H. Kaji, MD, PhD; Marja A. Boermeester, MD, PhD JAMA Surgery
• Guide to Statistics and Methods AAPOR Reporting Guidelines for Survey Studies Susan C. Pitt, MD, MPHS; Todd A. Schwartz, DrPH; Danny Chu, MD JAMA Surgery
• Guide to Statistics and Methods MOOSE Reporting Guidelines for Meta-analyses of Observational Studies Benjamin S. Brooke, MD, PhD; Todd A. Schwartz, DrPH, MS; Timothy M. Pawlik, MD, MPH, PhD JAMA Surgery
• Guide to Statistics and Methods TREND Reporting Guidelines for Nonrandomized/Quasi-Experimental Study Designs Alex B. Haynes, MD, MPH; Jason S. Haukoos, MD, MSc; Justin B. Dimick, MD, MPH JAMA Surgery
• Guide to Statistics and Methods The CONSORT Framework Ryan P. Merkow, MD, MS; Amy H. Kaji, MD, PhD; Kamal M. F. Itani, MD JAMA Surgery

Appropriate criteria for evaluating rigor in qualitative research depend on the specifics of the approach and methods used, but inadequate reporting hinders the ability of readers to interpret and assess the strength of any qualitative study. 1 - 5 The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) 5 and the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) 4 are 2 attempts to improve transparency in qualitative health research through standardizing study reporting ( Box ). Both guidelines were derived by comparing, synthesizing, and supplementing previously published recommendations. The COREQ checklist was published in 2007, synthesized 22 original sources, and is a 32-item checklist. The SRQR was published in 2014, synthesized 40 original sources (including the COREQ), incorporated a review by 5 independent experts, and resulted in a 21-item list of standards.

• Editorial Effective Use of Reporting Guidelines to Improve the Quality of Surgical Research JAMA Surgery

Read More About

Dossett LA , Kaji AH , Cochran A. SRQR and COREQ Reporting Guidelines for Qualitative Studies. JAMA Surg. 2021;156(9):875–876. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0525

Manage citations:

© 2024

Artificial Intelligence Resource Center

Surgery in JAMA : Read the Latest

Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!

Others Also Liked

Select your interests.

Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.

• Academic Medicine
• Acid Base, Electrolytes, Fluids
• Allergy and Clinical Immunology
• American Indian or Alaska Natives
• Anesthesiology
• Anticoagulation
• Art and Images in Psychiatry
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assisted Reproduction
• Bleeding and Transfusion
• Caring for the Critically Ill Patient
• Challenges in Clinical Electrocardiography
• Climate and Health
• Climate Change
• Clinical Challenge
• Clinical Decision Support
• Clinical Implications of Basic Neuroscience
• Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Consensus Statements
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Critical Care Medicine
• Cultural Competency
• Dental Medicine
• Dermatology
• Diabetes and Endocrinology
• Diagnostic Test Interpretation
• Drug Development
• Electronic Health Records
• Emergency Medicine
• End of Life, Hospice, Palliative Care
• Environmental Health
• Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
• Facial Plastic Surgery
• Gastroenterology and Hepatology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Genomics and Precision Health
• Global Health
• Guide to Statistics and Methods
• Hair Disorders
• Health Care Delivery Models
• Health Care Economics, Insurance, Payment
• Health Care Quality
• Health Care Reform
• Health Care Safety
• Health Care Workforce
• Health Disparities
• Health Inequities
• Health Policy
• Health Systems Science
• History of Medicine
• Hypertension
• Images in Neurology
• Implementation Science
• Infectious Diseases
• Innovations in Health Care Delivery
• JAMA Infographic
• Law and Medicine
• Leading Change
• Less is More
• LGBTQIA Medicine
• Lifestyle Behaviors
• Medical Coding
• Medical Devices and Equipment
• Medical Education
• Medical Education and Training
• Medical Journals and Publishing
• Mobile Health and Telemedicine
• Narrative Medicine
• Neuroscience and Psychiatry
• Notable Notes
• Nutrition, Obesity, Exercise
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Occupational Health
• Ophthalmology
• Orthopedics
• Otolaryngology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Care
• Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
• Patient Care
• Patient Information
• Performance Improvement
• Performance Measures
• Perioperative Care and Consultation
• Pharmacoeconomics
• Pharmacoepidemiology
• Pharmacogenetics
• Pharmacy and Clinical Pharmacology
• Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
• Physical Therapy
• Physician Leadership
• Population Health
• Primary Care
• Professional Well-being
• Professionalism
• Psychiatry and Behavioral Health
• Public Health
• Pulmonary Medicine
• Regulatory Agencies
• Reproductive Health
• Research, Methods, Statistics
• Resuscitation
• Rheumatology
• Risk Management
• Scientific Discovery and the Future of Medicine
• Shared Decision Making and Communication
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports Medicine
• Stem Cell Transplantation
• Substance Use and Addiction Medicine
• Surgical Innovation
• Surgical Pearls
• Teachable Moment
• Technology and Finance
• The Art of JAMA
• The Arts and Medicine
• The Rational Clinical Examination
• Tobacco and e-Cigarettes
• Translational Medicine
• Trauma and Injury
• Treatment Adherence
• Ultrasonography
• Users' Guide to the Medical Literature
• Vaccination
• Venous Thromboembolism
• Veterans Health
• Women's Health
• Workflow and Process
• Wound Care, Infection, Healing
• Register for email alerts with links to free full-text articles
• Access PDFs of free articles
• Manage your interests
• Save searches and receive search alerts

Guidance for reporting a qualitative study

This advice is relevant to studies reporting qualitative research and is based on the SRQR guidelines.  Read more

The following information was originally published here.

Concise description of the nature and topic of the study identifying the study as qualitative or indicating the approach (e.g. ethnography, grounded theory) or data collection methods (e.g. interview, focus group) is recommended.

Summary of the key elements of the study using the abstract format of the intended publication; typically includes background, purpose, methods, results and conclusions.

• Introduction

3. Problem formulation

Description and signifcance of the problem / phenomenon studied: review of relevant theory and empirical work; problem statement.

4. Purpose or research question

Purpose of the study and specific objectives or questions.

5. Qualitative approach and research paradigm

Qualitative approach (e.g. ethnography, grounded theory, case study, phenomenolgy, narrative research) and guiding theory if appropriate; identifying the research paradigm (e.g. postpositivist, constructivist / interpretivist) is also recommended; rationale. The rationale should briefly discuss the justification for choosing that theory, approach, method or technique rather than other options available; the assumptions and limitations implicit in those choices and how those choices influence study conclusions and transferability. As appropriate the rationale for several items might be discussed together.

6. Researcher characteristics and reflexivity

Researchers' characteristics that may influence the research, including personal attributes, qualifications / experience, relationship with participants, assumptions and / or presuppositions; potential or actual interaction between researchers' characteristics and the research questions, approach, methods, results and / or transferability.

Setting / site and salient contextual factors; rationale.

8. Sampling strategy

How and why research participants, documents, or events were selected; criteria for deciding when no further sampling was necessary (e.g. sampling saturation); rationale.

9. Ethical issues pertaining to human subjects

Documentation of approval by an appropriate ethics review board and participant consent, or explanation for lack thereof; other confidentiality and data security issues.

10. Data collection methods

Types of data collected; details of data collection procedures including (as appropriate) start and stop dates of data collection and analysis, iterative process, triangulation of sources / methods, and modification of procedures in response to evolving study findings; rationale.

11. Data collection instruments and technologies

Description of instruments (e.g. interview guides, questionnaires) and devices (e.g. audio recorders) used for data collection; if / how the instruments(s) changed over the course of the study.

12. Units of study

Number and relevant characteristics of participants, documents, or events included in the study; level of participation (could be reported in results).

13. Data processing

Methods for processing data prior to and during analysis, including transcription, data entry, data management and security, verification of data integrity, data coding, and anonymisation / deidentification of excerpts.

14. Data analysis

Process by which inferences, themes, etc. were identified and developed, including the researchers involved in data analysis; usually references a specific paradigm or approach; rationale.

15. Techniques to enhance trustworthiness

Techniques to enhance trustworthiness and credibility of data analysis (e.g. member checking, audit trail, triangulation); rationale.

• Results/findings

16. Syntheses and interpretation

Main findings (e.g. interpretations, inferences, and themes); might include development of a theory or model, or integration with prior research or theory.

17. Links to empirical data

Evidence (e.g. quotes, field notes, text excerpts, photographs) to substantiate analytic findings.

18. Intergration with prior work, implications, transferability and contribution(s) to the field

Short summary of main findings; explanation of how findings and conclusions connect to, support, elaborate on, or challenge conclusions of earlier scholarship; discussion of scope of application / generalizability; identification of unique contributions(s) to scholarship in a discipline or field.

19. Limitations

Trustworthiness and limitations of findings.

20. Conflicts of interest

Potential sources of influence of perceived influence on study conduct and conclusions; how these were managed.

21. Funding

Sources of funding and other support; role of funders in data collection, interpretation and reporting.

To acknowledge this checklist in your methods, please state "We used the SRQR checklist when writing our report [citation]". Then cite this checklist as 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):1245-1251..

The SRQR checklist is distributed with permission of Wolters Kluwer © 2014 by the Association of American Medical Colleges

• Instructions

The authors created the SRQR by searching the literature to identify guidelines, reporting standards and critical appraisal criteria for qualitative research; reviewing the reference lists of retrieved sources and contacting experts to gain feedback. The SRQR aims to improve the transparency of all aspects of qualitative research by providing clear standards for reporting qualitative research.

Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations

• General Internal Medicine

Research output : Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

PURPOSE: Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods. METHOD: The authors identified guidelines, reporting standards, and critical appraisal criteria for qualitative research by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Google through July 2013; reviewing the reference lists of retrieved sources; and contacting experts. Specifically, two authors reviewed a sample of sources to generate an initial set of items that were potentially important in reporting qualitative research. Through an iterative process of reviewing sources, modifying the set of items, and coding all sources for items, the authors prepared a near-final list of items and descriptions and sent this list to five external reviewers for feedback. The final items and descriptions included in the reporting standards reflect this feedback. RESULTS: The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) consists of 21 items. The authors define and explain key elements of each item and provide examples from recently published articles to illustrate ways in which the standards can be met. CONCLUSIONS: The SRQR aims to improve the transparency of all aspects of qualitative research by providing clear standards for reporting qualitative research. These standards will assist authors during manuscript preparation, editors and reviewers in evaluating a manuscript for potential publication, and readers when critically appraising, applying, and synthesizing study findings.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to document.

• 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388

Other files and links

• Link to publication in Scopus
• Link to the citations in Scopus

Fingerprint

• qualitative research Social Sciences 100%
• quantitative research Social Sciences 14%
• search engine Social Sciences 13%
• coding Social Sciences 12%
• editor Social Sciences 12%
• transparency Social Sciences 12%
• flexibility Social Sciences 11%
• paradigm Social Sciences 9%

T1 - Standards for reporting qualitative research

T2 - A synthesis of recommendations

AU - O'Brien, Bridget C.

AU - Harris, Ilene B.

AU - Beckman, Thomas J.

AU - Reed, Darcy A.

AU - Cook, David A.

PY - 2014/9

Y1 - 2014/9

N2 - PURPOSE: Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods. METHOD: The authors identified guidelines, reporting standards, and critical appraisal criteria for qualitative research by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Google through July 2013; reviewing the reference lists of retrieved sources; and contacting experts. Specifically, two authors reviewed a sample of sources to generate an initial set of items that were potentially important in reporting qualitative research. Through an iterative process of reviewing sources, modifying the set of items, and coding all sources for items, the authors prepared a near-final list of items and descriptions and sent this list to five external reviewers for feedback. The final items and descriptions included in the reporting standards reflect this feedback. RESULTS: The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) consists of 21 items. The authors define and explain key elements of each item and provide examples from recently published articles to illustrate ways in which the standards can be met. CONCLUSIONS: The SRQR aims to improve the transparency of all aspects of qualitative research by providing clear standards for reporting qualitative research. These standards will assist authors during manuscript preparation, editors and reviewers in evaluating a manuscript for potential publication, and readers when critically appraising, applying, and synthesizing study findings.

AB - PURPOSE: Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods. METHOD: The authors identified guidelines, reporting standards, and critical appraisal criteria for qualitative research by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Google through July 2013; reviewing the reference lists of retrieved sources; and contacting experts. Specifically, two authors reviewed a sample of sources to generate an initial set of items that were potentially important in reporting qualitative research. Through an iterative process of reviewing sources, modifying the set of items, and coding all sources for items, the authors prepared a near-final list of items and descriptions and sent this list to five external reviewers for feedback. The final items and descriptions included in the reporting standards reflect this feedback. RESULTS: The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) consists of 21 items. The authors define and explain key elements of each item and provide examples from recently published articles to illustrate ways in which the standards can be met. CONCLUSIONS: The SRQR aims to improve the transparency of all aspects of qualitative research by providing clear standards for reporting qualitative research. These standards will assist authors during manuscript preparation, editors and reviewers in evaluating a manuscript for potential publication, and readers when critically appraising, applying, and synthesizing study findings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84908022244&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84908022244&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388

M3 - Article

C2 - 24979285

AN - SCOPUS:84908022244

SN - 1040-2446

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SRQR and COREQ Reporting Guidelines for Qualitative Studies

Affiliations.

• 1 Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
• 2 Institute for Health Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
• 3 Department of Emergency Medicine, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California.
• 4 Statistical Editor, JAMA Surgery.
• 5 Web and Social Media Editor, JAMA Surgery.
• PMID: 33825809
• DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0525
• Data Collection / standards
• Data Interpretation, Statistical
• Guidelines as Topic*
• Qualitative Research*
• Research Design
• Research Report / standards*

Grants and funding

• K08 HS026030/HS/AHRQ HHS/United States