Critiquing and reflexively applying qualitative research reporting standards in interdisciplinary contexts_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

YU Dongdong ^1,2 , LI Cai ^1,2 , CHENG Ting ³ , QIU Xingying ^1,2 , SONG Linjie ^1,2 , ZHOU Li ² ,  LI Geng ² ,  WEN Zehuai ²

1. The Second Clinical School of Medicine, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510405, P. R. China;
2. Center for Clinical Research, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine (Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine), Guangzhou 510120, P. R. China;
3. The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui University of Chinese Medicine, Hefei 230031, P. R. China;

Corresponding?author：

LI Geng, Email: ligeng@gzucm.edu.cn; WEN Zehuai, Email: wenzh@gzucm.edu.cn

Keywords：

Qualitative research; Reporting standards; Interdisciplinary research; Value orientation; Reflexive adaptation

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202512174

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective This study aims to explore the application of qualitative research reporting standards in interdisciplinary knowledge production and to propose more adaptable reflexive use strategies, so as to enhance the transparency, credibility, and knowledge translation value of qualitative research reports. Methods From an interdisciplinary perspective, this study compared four representative reporting standards: COREQ, SRQR, ENTREQ, and JARS-Qual, in terms of their applicable scope, core objectives, item structure, and implicit quality orientations. It analyzed practical issues such as checklist thinking, methodological misalignment, and insufficient interdisciplinary adaptation. Drawing on the concept of value-based reporting frameworks, it introduced reflexive adaptation strategies and demonstrates their application pathways through empirical cases. Results The four reporting standards each had their own emphases, but in interdisciplinary applications they tended to lead to mechanical application, methodological misalignment, and inadequate contextual adaptation. The same checklist item carried different meanings across different epistemological orientations and must be understood in light of research paradigms and disciplinary contexts. The value of reporting standards lied not in providing a universal checklist, but in helping researchers clearly articulate the relationships among research design, data generation, analytical pathways, and interpretation of findings. Conclusion Qualitative research reporting standards should adopt a reflexive adaptation strategy. Researchers need to make justified choices, translations, and supplements to the standards based on research questions, methodological traditions, data forms, and disciplinary contexts, forming an application pathway of "retain-translate-supplement". This study advocates that researchers, journal editors, and reviewers use reporting standards in a more open, prudently, and methodologically self-aware manner, thereby achieving a dynamic balance between standardization and methodological diversity.

Citation： YU Dongdong, LI Cai, CHENG Ting, QIU Xingying, SONG Linjie, ZHOU Li, LI Geng, WEN Zehuai. Critiquing and reflexively applying qualitative research reporting standards in interdisciplinary contexts. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2026, 26(9): 1059-1067. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202512174 Copy

1.	Maher L, Dertadian G. Qualitative research[J]. Addiction, 2018, 113(1): 167-172.
2.	Im D, Pyo J, Lee H, et al. Qualitative research in healthcare: data analysis[J]. J Prev Med Public Health, 2023, 56(2): 100-110.
3.	Neale J, Cassidy J, Cosgrove S, et al. Naloxone dosing by non-medical first-responders at opioid overdoses: findings from a qualitative interview study[J]. Harm Reduct J, 2025, 22(1): 58.
4.	O'Neal K, Erkenbeck A, Nau CL, et al. What patients want– qualitative research on the patient perspective of a food is medicine intervention. Health Serv Res, 2025, 60(Suppl 1): e14558.
5.	Dioba A, Kroker V, Dewitte S, et al. Barriers to pro-environmental behavior change: a review of qualitative research[J]. Sustainability, 2024, 16(20): 8776.
6.	Zhao Y, Miao Q, Xin S, et al. A qualitative study of parental caregiving experience in adolescents with depression from the perspective of positive psychology in China[J]. Front Public Health, 2025, 13: 1454085.
7.	Khoa BT, Hung BP, Brahmi MH. Qualitative research in social sciences: data collection, data analysis and report writing[J]. Int J Public Sect Perform Manag, 2023, 12: 187-209.
8.	Hammersley M. Rewriting social science: the literary turn in qualitative research[J]. Qual Inq, 2024, 30(6): 533-540.
9.	Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups[J]. Int J Qual Health Care, 2007, 19(6): 349-357.
10.	O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, et al. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations[J]. Acad Med, 2014, 89(9): 1245-1251.
11.	Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, et al. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2012, 12: 181.
12.	Levitt HM, Bamberg M, Creswell JW, et al. 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[J]. Am Psychol, 2018, 73(1): 26-46.
13.	費宇彤, 劉建平, 于河, 等. 報告定性研究個體訪談和焦點組訪談統一標準的介紹[J]. 中西醫結合學報, 2008, (2): 115-118.
14.	鐘珍梅, 劉少堃, 趙舒煊, 等. 提高定性研究合成報告透明度(ENTREQ)的指南解讀[J]. 循證醫學, 2015, 15(5): 309-313.
15.	楊琳, 楊志英, 阮洪. 質性研究報告標準介紹及思考[J]. 護理學雜志, 2019, 34(14): 105-108.
16.	許強. 淺析定性研究中存在的問題及相關思考[J]. 學理論, 2015, (9): 60-62.
17.	風笑天. 定性研究概念與類型的探討[J]. 社會科學輯刊, 2017, (3): 45-52, 2.
18.	Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2008, 8: 45.
19.	Rashid A, Thomas V, Shaw T, et al. Patient and public involvement in the development of healthcare guidance: an overview of current methods and future challenges[J]. Patient, 2017, 10(3): 277-282.
20.	Taylor M, Garner P, Oliver S, et al. Use of qualitative research in World Health Organisation guidelines: a document analysis[J]. Health Res Policy Syst, 2024, 22(1): 44.
21.	Takona JP. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches/sixth edition[J]. Qual Quant, 2024, 58(1): 1011-1013.
22.	Burgess RG. In the field: an introduction to field research. 1st ed[M]. London: Routledge, 2002.
23.	Ratner C. Cultural psychology and qualitative methodology: scientific and political considerations[J]. Cult Psychol, 2008, 14: 259-288.
24.	Okoko JM, Tunison S, Walker KD. Varieties of qualitative research methods: selected contextual perspectives[M]. Cham: Springer, 2023.
25.	Fisher MP, Hamer MK. Qualitative methods in health policy and systems research: a framework for study planning[J]. Qual Health Res, 2020, 30(12): 1899-1912.
26.	劉建平. 循證中醫藥臨床研究方法學[M]. 北京: 人民衛生出版社, 2006.
27.	Leavy P. The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
28.	Braun V, Clarke V. Reporting guidelines for qualitative research: a values-based approach[J]. Qual Res Psychol, 2025, 22(2): 399-438.
29.	Bobbink P, Larkin P, Probst S. Reflecting on reporting guidelines in qualitative inquiry: advocating for openness or methodological specificity in constructivist grounded theory[J]. Glob Qual Nurs Res, 2026, 13: 23333936251413205.
30.	Gertner AK, Franklin J, Roth I, et al. A scoping review of the use of ethnographic approaches in implementation research and recommendations for reporting[J]. Implement Res Pract, 2021, 2: 2633489521992743.
31.	Ma SS, Yu H, Li YQ, et al. Qualitative research on TCM complex interventions - the experience and cognition of Chinese patients[J]. Eur J Integr Med, 2023, 59: 102243.
32.	Z?rg? S, Purebl G, Zana á. A qualitative study of culturally embedded factors in complementary and alternative medicine use[J]. BMC Complement Altern Med, 2018, 18(1): 25.
33.	Wang Y, Rathbone AP, Millard C. The use of traditional Chinese medicine among the Chinese immigrants in the United Kingdom: an intersectionality perspective[J]. Soc Sci Humanit Open, 2024, 10: 101045.
34.	Kwan YH, Chooi S, Yoon S, et al. Professionalism in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practitioners: a qualitative study[J]. BMC Complement Med Ther, 2020, 20(1): 335.

1. Maher L, Dertadian G. Qualitative research[J]. Addiction, 2018, 113(1): 167-172.
2. Im D, Pyo J, Lee H, et al. Qualitative research in healthcare: data analysis[J]. J Prev Med Public Health, 2023, 56(2): 100-110.
3. Neale J, Cassidy J, Cosgrove S, et al. Naloxone dosing by non-medical first-responders at opioid overdoses: findings from a qualitative interview study[J]. Harm Reduct J, 2025, 22(1): 58.
4. O'Neal K, Erkenbeck A, Nau CL, et al. What patients want– qualitative research on the patient perspective of a food is medicine intervention. Health Serv Res, 2025, 60(Suppl 1): e14558.
5. Dioba A, Kroker V, Dewitte S, et al. Barriers to pro-environmental behavior change: a review of qualitative research[J]. Sustainability, 2024, 16(20): 8776.
6. Zhao Y, Miao Q, Xin S, et al. A qualitative study of parental caregiving experience in adolescents with depression from the perspective of positive psychology in China[J]. Front Public Health, 2025, 13: 1454085.
7. Khoa BT, Hung BP, Brahmi MH. Qualitative research in social sciences: data collection, data analysis and report writing[J]. Int J Public Sect Perform Manag, 2023, 12: 187-209.
8. Hammersley M. Rewriting social science: the literary turn in qualitative research[J]. Qual Inq, 2024, 30(6): 533-540.
9. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups[J]. Int J Qual Health Care, 2007, 19(6): 349-357.
10. O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, et al. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations[J]. Acad Med, 2014, 89(9): 1245-1251.
11. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, et al. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2012, 12: 181.
12. Levitt HM, Bamberg M, Creswell JW, et al. 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[J]. Am Psychol, 2018, 73(1): 26-46.
13. 費宇彤, 劉建平, 于河, 等. 報告定性研究個體訪談和焦點組訪談統一標準的介紹[J]. 中西醫結合學報, 2008, (2): 115-118.
14. 鐘珍梅, 劉少堃, 趙舒煊, 等. 提高定性研究合成報告透明度(ENTREQ)的指南解讀[J]. 循證醫學, 2015, 15(5): 309-313.
15. 楊琳, 楊志英, 阮洪. 質性研究報告標準介紹及思考[J]. 護理學雜志, 2019, 34(14): 105-108.
16. 許強. 淺析定性研究中存在的問題及相關思考[J]. 學理論, 2015, (9): 60-62.
17. 風笑天. 定性研究概念與類型的探討[J]. 社會科學輯刊, 2017, (3): 45-52, 2.
18. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2008, 8: 45.
19. Rashid A, Thomas V, Shaw T, et al. Patient and public involvement in the development of healthcare guidance: an overview of current methods and future challenges[J]. Patient, 2017, 10(3): 277-282.
20. Taylor M, Garner P, Oliver S, et al. Use of qualitative research in World Health Organisation guidelines: a document analysis[J]. Health Res Policy Syst, 2024, 22(1): 44.
21. Takona JP. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches/sixth edition[J]. Qual Quant, 2024, 58(1): 1011-1013.
22. Burgess RG. In the field: an introduction to field research. 1st ed[M]. London: Routledge, 2002.
23. Ratner C. Cultural psychology and qualitative methodology: scientific and political considerations[J]. Cult Psychol, 2008, 14: 259-288.
24. Okoko JM, Tunison S, Walker KD. Varieties of qualitative research methods: selected contextual perspectives[M]. Cham: Springer, 2023.
25. Fisher MP, Hamer MK. Qualitative methods in health policy and systems research: a framework for study planning[J]. Qual Health Res, 2020, 30(12): 1899-1912.
26. 劉建平. 循證中醫藥臨床研究方法學[M]. 北京: 人民衛生出版社, 2006.
27. Leavy P. The Oxford handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
28. Braun V, Clarke V. Reporting guidelines for qualitative research: a values-based approach[J]. Qual Res Psychol, 2025, 22(2): 399-438.
29. Bobbink P, Larkin P, Probst S. Reflecting on reporting guidelines in qualitative inquiry: advocating for openness or methodological specificity in constructivist grounded theory[J]. Glob Qual Nurs Res, 2026, 13: 23333936251413205.
30. Gertner AK, Franklin J, Roth I, et al. A scoping review of the use of ethnographic approaches in implementation research and recommendations for reporting[J]. Implement Res Pract, 2021, 2: 2633489521992743.
31. Ma SS, Yu H, Li YQ, et al. Qualitative research on TCM complex interventions - the experience and cognition of Chinese patients[J]. Eur J Integr Med, 2023, 59: 102243.
32. Z?rg? S, Purebl G, Zana á. A qualitative study of culturally embedded factors in complementary and alternative medicine use[J]. BMC Complement Altern Med, 2018, 18(1): 25.
33. Wang Y, Rathbone AP, Millard C. The use of traditional Chinese medicine among the Chinese immigrants in the United Kingdom: an intersectionality perspective[J]. Soc Sci Humanit Open, 2024, 10: 101045.
34. Kwan YH, Chooi S, Yoon S, et al. Professionalism in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) practitioners: a qualitative study[J]. BMC Complement Med Ther, 2020, 20(1): 335.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Critiquing and reflexively applying qualitative research reporting standards in interdisciplinary contexts

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content