This assessment involves preparing a report with data analysis/discussion of interviews and a brief presentation. There are two steps for this assignment. Part A involves writing a report and Part B involves a 10 minute presentation in class. Assessment 3A advances skills in analysing and reporting qualitative data, and reflexivity of practice. Key understanding includes how to generate meaning from qualitative data, how to report the results of qualitative analysis, and how to reflect on one’s own performance to identify strengths and opportunities for growth. The assessment prepares students for an important task common to the public health practitioner role.Part 1 (1500):Analysis: Use the resources in module six to: 1. Code the data that you collect from your interviewees. 2. Develop themes based on your coding 3. Report on the themes that you’ve identified, supported by relevant quotes from your interviewees. Report this part in the same style as the results section of a qualitative journal article. Reflection: reflect on your experience of interviewing and analysing the data. What did you do well, and what did you struggle with? What could you learn to do better? What did you learn through this experience? Part 2 (500 Power point presentation) :Summarise your research question, methods, interview process, data analysis and results in a 5 minute presentation. You can use the presentation mode of your choice ie PowerPoint
Copyright © by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Academic Medicine, Vol. 89, No. 9 / September 2014 1 Research Report Qualitative research contributes to the literature in many disciplines by describ- ing, interpreting, and generating theories about social interactions and individual experiences as they occur in natural, rather than experimental, situations.1–3 Some recent examples include studies of professional dilemmas,4 medical students’ early experiences of workplace learning,5 patients’ experiences of disease and interventions,6–8 and patients’ perspec- tives about incident disclosures.9 The purpose of qualitative research is to un- derstand the perspectives/experiences of individuals or groups and the contexts in which these perspectives or experiences are situated.1,2,10 Qualitative research is increasingly common and valued in the medical and medical education literature.1,10–13 However, the quality of such research can be difficult to evaluate because of incomplete reporting of key elements.14,15 Quality is multifaceted and includes consideration of the importance of the research question, the rigor of the research methods, the appropriateness and salience of the inferences, and the clarity and completeness of reporting.16,17 Although there is much debate about standards for methodological rigor in qualitative research,13,14,18–20 there is widespread agreement about the need for clear and complete reporting.14,21,22 Optimal reporting would enable editors, reviewers, other researchers, and practitioners to critically appraise qualitative studies and apply and synthesize the results. One important step in improving the quality of reporting is to formulate and define clear reporting standards. Authors have proposed guidelines for the quality of qualitative research, including those in the fields of medical education,23–25 clinical and health services research,26–28 and general education research.29,30 Yet in nearly all cases, the authors do not describe how the guidelines were created, and often fail to distinguish reporting quality from the other facets of quality (e.g., the research question or methods). Several authors suggest standards for reporting qualitative research,15,20,29–33 but their articles focus on a subset of qualitative data collection methods (e.g., interviews), fail to explain how the authors developed the reporting criteria, narrowly construe qualitative research (e.g., thematic analysis) in ways that may exclude other approaches, and/ or lack specific examples to help others see how the standards might be achieved. Thus, there remains a compelling need for defensible and broadly applicable standards for reporting qualitative research. We designed and carried out the present study to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research through a rigorous synthesis of published articles and expert recommendations. Method We formulated standards for reporting qualitative research by using a rigor- ous and systematic approach in which we reviewed previously proposed Acad Med. 2014;89:00–00. First published online doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388 Abstract 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, report- ing standards, and critical appraisal criteria for qualitative research by search- ing 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 descrip- tions included in the reporting standards reflect this feedback. Results The Standards for Reporting Qualita- tive 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 transpar- ency of all aspects of qualitative research by providing clear standards for report- ing 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. Please see the end of this article for information about the authors. Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. O’Brien, Office of Research and Development in Medical Education, UCSF School of Medicine, Box 3202, 1855 Folsom St., Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94143-3202; e-mail: bridget.obrien@ucsf.edu. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: A Synthesis of Recommendations Bridget C. O’Brien, PhD, Ilene B. Harris, PhD, Thomas J. Beckman, MD, Darcy A. Reed, MD, MPH, and David A. Cook, MD, MHPE Supplemental digital content for this article is available at http://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218. mailto:bridget.obrien@ucsf.edu http://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 Copyright © by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited. Research Report Academic Medicine, Vol. 89, No. 9 / September 20142 recommendations by experts in quali- tative methods. Our research team consisted of two PhD researchers and one physician with formal training and ex- perience in qualitative methods, and two physicians with experience, but no formal training, in qualitative methods. We first identified previously proposed recommendations by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Google using com- binations of terms such as “qualitative methods,” “qualitative research,” “qualita- tive guidelines,” “qualitative standards,” and “critical appraisal” and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved sources, reviewing the Equator Network,22 and contacting experts. We conducted our first search in January 2007 and our last search in July 2013. Most recommenda- tions were published in peer-reviewed journals, but some were available only on the Internet, and one was an interim draft from a national organization. We report the full set of the 40 sources reviewed in Supplemental Digital Appendix 1, found at http://links.lww. com/ACADMED/A218. Two of us (B.O., I.H.) reviewed an initial sample of sources to generate a comprehensive list of items that were potentially important in reporting qualitative research (Draft A). All of us then worked in pairs to review all sources and code the presence or absence of each item in a given source. From Draft A, we then distilled a shorter list (Draft B) by identifying core concepts and combining related items, taking into account the number of times each item appeared in these sources. We then compared the items in Draft B with material in the original sources to check for missing concepts, modify accordingly, and add explanatory definitions to create a prefinal list of items (Draft C). We circulated Draft C to five experienced qualitative researchers (see the acknowl- edgments) for review. We asked them to note any omitted or redundant items and to suggest improvements to the wording to enhance clarity and relevance across a broad spectrum of qualitative inquiry. In response to their reviews, we consolidated some items and made minor revisions to the wording of labels and defini- tions to create the final set of reporting standards—the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR)—summarized in Table 1. To explicate how the final set of stan- dards reflect the material in the origi- nal sources, two of us (B.O., D.A.C.) selected by consensus the 25 most com- plete sources of recommendations and identified which standards reflected the concepts found in each original source (see Table 2). Results The SRQR is a list of 21 items that we consider essential for complete, transparent reporting of qualitative research (see Table 1). As explained above, we developed these items through a rigorous synthesis of prior recommendations and concepts from published sources (see Table 2; see also Supplemental Digital Appendix 1, found at http://links.lww.com/ ACADMED/A218) and expert review. These 21 items provide a framework and recommendations for reporting qualitative studies. Given the wide range of qualitative approaches and methodologies, we attempted to select items with broad relevance. The SRQR includes the article’s title and abstract (items 1 and 2); problem formulation and research question (items 3 and 4); research design and methods of data collection and analysis (items 5 through 15); results, interpretation, discussion, and integration (items 16 through 19); and other information (items 20 and 21). Supplemental Digital Appendix 2, found at http://links.lww. com/ACADMED/A218, contains a detailed explanation of each item, along with examples from recently published qualitative studies. Below, we briefly describe the standards, with a particular focus on those unique to qualitative research. Titles, abstracts, and introductory material. Reporting standards for titles, abstracts, and introductory material (problem formulation, research question) in qualitative research are very similar to those for quantitative research, except that the results reported in the abstract are narrative rather than numerical, and authors rarely present a specific hypothesis.29,30 Research design and methods. Reporting on research design and methods of data collection and analysis highlights several distinctive features of qualitative research. Many of the criteria we reviewed focus not only on identifying and describing all aspects of the methods (e.g., approach, researcher characteristics and role, sampling strategy, context, data collection and analysis) but also on justifying each choice.13,14 This ensures that authors make their assumptions and decisions transparent to readers. This standard is less commonly expected in quantitative research, perhaps because most quantitative researchers share positivist assumptions and generally agree about standards for rigor of various study designs and sampling techniques.14 Just as quantitative reporting standards encourage authors to describe how they