Korean J Women Health Nurs.  2012 Dec;18(4):321-332. 10.4069/kjwhn.2012.18.4.321.

Analysis on Reports of Qualitative Researches Published in Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing

• Lee EJ
• Song JE
• Kim M
• Kim S
• Jun EM
• Ahn S
• Oh HE
• Cheon SH

• KMID: 2308270
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2012.18.4.321

Abstract

PURPOSE
This research was aimed to analyze the reports of qualitative researches published in Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing (KJWHN).
METHODS
Twenty qualitative researches using in-depth interviews or focus groups published in KJWHN during from 2002 to 2011 were selected for analysis. Selected reports were analyzed by consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ), which were a reporting guideline for qualitative researches, and consisted of thirty two items and three domains, i.e., (1) research team and reflexivity, (2) study design, and (3) data analysis and reporting.
RESULTS
Personal characteristics related to credentials, gender and interviewer's bias or assumption were less reported than other items in the 1st domain. In the 2nd domain, descriptions such as a presence of non-participants, pilot test for interview guide development, and transcript return to participants were less reported than other items. In the 3rd domain, items related to number of data coder, participants checking of the finding, and clarity of minor themes were less reported than other items.
CONCLUSION
It could be concluded that COREQ is a useful guideline for reporting of qualitative studies. From these results, we suggest that full items of COREQ should be considered and described when researchers report qualitative research.

Keyword

Qualitative research; Interview; Focus groups; Report; Guideline; COREQ

MeSH Terms

Bias (Epidemiology)
Female
Focus Groups
Humans
Qualitative Research
Reflex
Statistics as Topic
Women's Health

Reference

1. Byrne MM. Evaluating the finding of qualitative research. AORN J. 2001. 73(3):703–706.

2. Cho DS, Chung CW, Kim JI, Ahn SH, Park SM, Park HS. Analysis on report of statistical testings for correlation and regression. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2008. 14:213–221.

3. Chung CW, Kim JI, Park HS, Ahn SH, Cho DS, Park SM. Analysis on report of statistical testings for mean differences. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2007. 13:211–218.

4. Cote L, Turgeon J. Appraising qualitative research articles in medicine and medical education. Med Teach. 2005. 27:71–75.

5. Fossey E, Harvey C, McDermott F, Davidson L. Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2002. 36:717–732.

6. Franciosi JP, Hommel KA, DeBrosse CW, Greenberg AR, Greenler AJ, Abonia JP, et al. Development of a validated patient-reported symptom metric for pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis: qualitative methods. BMC Gastroenterol. 2011. 11:126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-230x-11-126.

7. Jun EM, Lee EH, Kim JI, Kang HS, Oh HE, Lee EJ, et al. Analysis on report of statistical testings for mean differences in articles in the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing. Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2011. 17:388–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2011.17.4.388.

8. Kim GB, Sin KL, Kim SS, Yoo EK, Kim NC, Park ES, et al. Qualitative research methodology. 2005. Seoul: Hyunmoonsa.

9. Kim JI, Lee EH, Kang HS, Oh HE, Lee EJ, Jun EM, et al. Analysis of published papers by keywords and research methods in the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing(2007-2009). Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2010. 16:307–316. http://dx.doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2010.16.3.307.

10. Kim JI, Park SM, Park HS, Chung CW, Ahn SH. Analysis of published papers by their keywords in the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing(2003-2006). Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2007. 13:51–59.

11. Larson EL, Cortazal M. Publication guidelines need widespread adoption. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012. 65:239–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1/jclinepi.2011.07.008.

12. Lee EJ, Lee EH, Kim JI, Kang HS, Oh HE, Jun EM, et al. Analysis of the correlation and regression analysis studies from the Korean Journal of Women Health Nursing over the past three years(2007-2009). Korean J Women Health Nurs. 2011. 17:187–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.4069/kjwhn.2011.17.2.187.

13. Sathyanarayana Rao TS, Tharyan P. Editorial policies aimed at improving the transparency and validity of published research. Indian J Psychiatry. 2011. 53:183–186. http://dx.doi.org/10.4104/0019-5545.86793.

14. Shin KL, Cho MO, Yang JH. Qualitative Research Methodology. 2004. Seoul: Ewha Womans University Press.

15. Tamminga SJ, de Boer AG, Verbeek JH, Frings-Dresen MH. Breast cancer survivors' views of factors that influence the return-to-work process - a qualitative study. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012. 38:144–154. http://dx.doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3199.

16. Tong A, Aainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research(COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus group. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007. 19:349–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042.